Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > May 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2464 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO AGUILA

088 Phil 711:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-2464. May 18, 1951.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANTIAGO AGUILA, Defendant-Appellant.

Jose P. Parentela, for defendant and Appellant.

Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Ramon Avanceña, for plaintiff and appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION. — In view of the prevailing conditions in regard to peace and order in the country, where the malefactors feel safe when they are armed, there is nothing strange or incredible in that the kidnappers would go through several places, including towns, and boarding several buses in carrying the captives whom they had kidnapped and detained.


D E C I S I O N


JUGO, J.:


Santiago Aguila, Elias Aguila, and several others were accused before the Justice of the Peace court of Tiaong, Quezon Province, of the crime of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention committed against Arsenio Gunda and Fausto Aguila. The Justice of the Peace, finding probable cause, forwarded the case to the Court of First Instance of Quezon Province, where two separate informations were filed, one against Elias Aguila, and the other against Santiago Aguila and Jorge Rosales, for said crime. Inasmuch as the other defendants were still at large, they were not included in the informations. The two cases, being intimately related, were tried together. After the prosecution had rested, the court, on motion, dismissed the case against Jorge Rosales for insufficiency of evidence. Elias and Santiago presented their evidence. After the trial, each of these two was sentenced under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs. Both appealed. As the appeal of Elias Aguila in a separate case has already been disposed of, we shall proceed with the appeal of Santiago Aguila.

From the evidence introduced by the prosecution, the following facts are established:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Arsenio Escudero is the owner of a charcoal factory known as banobusan at the place called Villa Escudero, in the barrio of Lalig, Municipality of Tiaong, Quezon Province. While Arsenio Gunda and Fausto Aguila, godsons of Arsenio Escudero, were guarding the charcoal factory in the evening of December 22, 1946, a group of four individuals, namely, Santiago Aguila, Elias Aguila, Pedro Aguila, and one Sanoy, armed with a .45 caliber automatic pistol, a grease gun, a .38 caliber revolver, and a .45 caliber automatic pistol, respectively, arrived at said place and approached Gunda, asking him whether he and Fausto were armed. Gunda answered that they had returned their arms to the foreman. Santiago then, in a threatening attitude and pointing his .45 caliber automatic pistol at Gunda, ordered Gunda and Fausto to go away with them. Elias Aguila and Sansoy tied the hands of Gunda and Fausto. Fausto begged that he be not taken away but Santiago said that he would kill anyone, even his father or brother, who would thwart him.

Fausto Aguila is an elder brother of Santiago Aguila. Santiago was formerly working also for Escudero, but had been dismissed for misbehavior and breach of trust. During the Japanese occupation Santiago had a quarrel with his brother Fausto in regard to the rice plots allotted by Escudero to Fausto, during which Santiago challenged Fausto to a bolo duel. Fausto did not accept the challenge and yielded to Santiago’s demand, giving him five rice plots instead of two. This incident shows the attitude of Santiago over Fausto. It should be considered in this connection that the purpose of Santiago was to obtain ransom from Escudero, using his brother as a tool to accomplish it, as will appear later herein.

Fausto and Gunda were taken to the house of Jorge Rosales, near the Factory, where Santiago prepared a letter addressed to Escudero, signed by Gunda and Fausto, demanding ransom from Escudero in the sum of P7,000.00, with the warning that if Escudero refused, his two guards would be killed by their captors. Gunda and Fausto at first refused to sign the letter prepared by Santiago, but through intimidation, they signed it. As Fausto signed his Christian name only, because he did not know how to write his surname, Santiago himself wrote it. After the letter had been signed, Santiago ordered Rosales to deliver it to the foreman of Escudero, telling Rosales that should he fail to do so he would be liquidated.

Santiago and Elias Aguila, with their companions, left the house of Jorge Rosales taking with them Fausto and Gunda. They walked along the railroad track up to the place called Burol. Leaving Pedro Aguila behind, they boarded with the captives a truck that was traveling toward the barrio of Bantilan, boarded another which was going toward Pallian, where they got off and crossed a river. They boarded another truck for San Juan, Batangas. There they transferred to another truck bound for Pallokan, where Fausto and Gunda were left in the house of Alfonso Alas-as. In that house they were guarded alternately by Elias Aguila and Alfonso Alas-as who were armed with a grease gun and a .38 caliber revolver, respectively.

On December 23, 1946, Arsenio Escudero received the first ransom note bearing the signatures of Arsenio Gunda and Fausto Aguila, but he ignored it. Santiago wrote another letter signed "Huks" increasing the ransom to P50,000,000. This letter was received by Escudero on December 29, 1946, but he paid no attention to it. Santiago wrote a third letter reducing the amount demanded to the original sum of P7,000.00, which letter was received by Escudero between the second and fourth day of January, 1947. Likewise, he did not heed this letter.

Gunda and Fausto were detained in the house of Alas-as for thirteen days, after which they were released by Santiago, with the warning that they should not reveal what had happen to them to anybody, otherwise they would be shot. Fausto and Gunda proceeded directly to San Pablo City where they reported the matter to a son-in- law of Escudero. The authorities were advised of it. Gunda and Fausto who testified to the above facts were characterized by the trial courts as "sincere and candid" witnesses, who narrated the events "with candor and lack of artificiality."

The handwriting in the ransom letter is similar to that in Exh. F, which was a letter written by Santiago to Arsenio Escudero before the occurrence of the crime. For this reason, Santiago was arrested at San Pablo City on January 7, 1947. During the investigation Santiago made a statement, Exh. H, in which he admitted that Gunda and Fausto had been kidnapped by him and Elias with other companions, but claimed that the kidnapping was made upon the request of Gunda and Fausto themselves in order to get some money from their employer Arsenio Escudero. In said statement, which was sworn to before the Justice of the Peace of Tiaong, Quezon Province, Santiago admitted that he was the author of all the ransom letters. During his detention in the provincial jail of Quezon Province, Santiago wrote a letter dated January 19, 1947, to Rosario Escudero, wife of Arsenio Escudero, repeating what he had said in his affidavit, Exh. H, and begging her pardon for what he had done. Aside from the admission of Santiago as the author of said letters, we have the testimony of Gunda and Fausto to the same effect, and, in addition, the opinion of Felipe Logan, handwriting expert of the National Bureau of Investigation, who studied and compared the letters in question with documents admitted to have been written by Santiago, reaching the conclusion that the incriminating letters are in the handwriting of Santiago.

Elias Aguila, the co-conspirator of Santiago, was arrested in San Juan, Batangas, on January 20, 1947, by Agent Belvis accompanied by some policemen, who found in Elias’ possession a grease gun which, according to Gunda, is the same grease gun used by Elias Aguila while guarding him and Fausto in the house of Alfonso Alas-as. When Elias was investigated he made a statement, Exh. L, in which he admits having been one of the authors of the kidnapping and detention, adding that "two weeks after Fausto and Arsenio were kidnapped, I sent for Santiago Aguila to come to my place. I sent Sanoy to fetch for him and he arrived thereafter. Upon his arrival he asked me why I called for him and I answered that I did not like the affair anymore and to take the two victims away from my place." The two victims were then released.

The contradictions pointed out by the appellant do not affect the essential facts and they are such contradictions as may be committed by honest witnesses in regard to unimportant details which are hard for anybody to remember.

The appellant argues that it is incredible that the captors would go through several places, including towns, and boarding several buses in carrying their captives. There is nothing strange in this, in view of the prevailing conditions in regard to peace and order in the country, where the malefactors feel safe when they are armed. This must be an aftermath of the war.

The theory of the defense that the kidnap was instigated by the same victims, Gunda and Fausto, in order to obtain money from Escudero is unbelievable and fantastic. If the victims themselves were the one who framed-up the kidnap, why should they have charged Santiago and Elias, who were relatives of Fausto, instead of attributing the crime to unknown persons? Gunda and even Fausto, notwithstanding the quarrel with his brother, could have had no sufficient motive to accuse the defendants of such a serious offense after the latter had helped them in their attempt to get money. The uncorroborated story of the defendants cannot counteract the straightforward testimony given by the witnesses for the prosecution, reinforced by direct and circumstantial evidence and the nature of things. Furthermore, the trial Judge who saw and heard the witnesses, found those of the prosecution, as above stated, candid and sincere.

The claim of the appellant for amnesty under Proclamation No. 76 has already been declared without merit by this Court.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4638 May 8, 1951 - TOMAS L. CABILI, ET AL. v. VICENTE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    088 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-2926 May 11, 1951 - PAZ JARIN, ET AL. v. DANIEL SARINAS, ET AL.

    088 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-3254 May 11, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO NATE, ET AL.

    088 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2260 May 14, 1951 - HONORATO DE VERA v. JOSE C. FERNANDEZ

    088 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-2843 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BENITO GUHITING, ET AL.

    088 Phil 672

  • G.R. Nos. L-3112 & L-3113 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SEVERINO NOLASCO

    088 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-2236 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS CRUZ

    088 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-3047 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUADALUPE ZAPATA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 688

  • G.R. Nos. L-3248 & L-3249 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO AGUILAR

    088 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3321 May 16, 1951 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PAZ E. DE LA CRUZ

    088 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. L-3824 May 16, 1951 - BENJAMIN v. HON. MARIANO C. MELENDRES

    088 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. L-2464 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO AGUILA

    088 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-2755 May 18, 1951 - JOHNNY CHAUSINTEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-3345 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS S. TAPANG

    088 Phil 721

  • G.R. Nos. L-3386 & L-3387 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO IBALI

    088 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-3497 May 18, 1951 - VALENTINA CUEVAS v. PILAR ACHACOSO

    088 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-3987 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

    088 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-4459 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE C. ZULUETA

    088 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2311 May 21, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN NADURATA

    088 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-2525 May 21, 1951 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. TOMAS DE VERA

    088 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-3099 May 21, 1951 - CIPRIANA GONZALES v. PURIFICACION, ET AL.

    088 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-3325 May 21, 1951 - FELIX BARRACA v. SOCORRO ZAYCO

    088 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-3537 May 21, 1951 - SISENANDO ARGUIETA, ET AL. v. VICENTE CORCUERA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-2155 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKADATO ALAMADA

    089 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1687 May 23, 1951 - CIPRIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2834 May 23, 1951 - ENCARNACION CAPARAS v. NICASIO YATCO

    089 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-2956 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ICARO

    089 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-2998 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN FLAVIER

    089 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-3002 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARTIN

    089 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-3324 May 23, 1951 - QUINCIANO ISAAC v. TACHUAN LEONG

    089 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3430 May 23, 1951 - PAZ E. SIGUION v. GO TECSON

    089 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3495 May 23, 1951 - ISIDORE FALEK v. NATIVIDAD GANDIONGCO DE SINGSON

    089 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-3549 May 23, 1951 - BERNARDO P. TIMBOL v. MARIA KABAKAW

    089 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-3561 May 23, 1951 - CESAR REYES v. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO

    089 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-3621 May 23, 1951 - DOMINGO T. DIKIT v. RAMON A. YCASIANO

    089 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3694 May 23, 1951 - LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CO. v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    089 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-2294 May 25, 1951 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. CHRISTERN

    089 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-1594 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. HONORIO CABILING

    089 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-1967 May 28, 1951 - MATILDE MENCIANO v. PAZ NERI SAN JOSE

    089 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-2645 May 28, 1951 - IN RE: ALFONSO R. LIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-2695 May 28, 1951 - FERMIN TABANDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    089 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. L-2841 May 28, 1951 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL Co. v. LUDOVICO ESTRADA

    089 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2847 May 28, 1951 - MAXIMINO VALDEZ v. MAGDALENA MENDOZA

    089 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2959 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMAZORA

    089 Phil 87

  • G.R. Nos. L-3267 & L-3268 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SABADO

    089 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3339 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CRISPIN RODILLAS

    089 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-3490 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FILEMON CARLON

    089 Phil 105

  • G.R. Nos. L-4053-55 May 28, 1951 - LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO. v. COMISION DE UTILIDADES PUBLICAS

    089 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-4143 May 28, 1951 - SIXTO PAÑGILINAN v. EMILIO PEÑA

    089 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. L-1743 May 29, 1951 - DOMINADOR NICOLAS v. VICENTA MATIAS

    089 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-1162 May 30, 1951 - IN RE: ROSARIO DIA v. JUAN ZUÑIGA

    089 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. L-1364 May 30, 1951 - LOO SOO and VY LIONG LEE v. DONATO OSORIO

    089 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-1866 May 30, 1951 - QUIRINO RANJO v. LEONITA PAYOMO

    089 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-2100 May 30, 1951 - GERARDO VASQUEZ v. PATROCINIO GARCIA

    089 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. L-2263 May 30, 1951 - PAZ Y. OCAMPO v. CONRADO POTENCIANO

    089 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2474 May 30, 1951 - MARIANO ANDAL v. EDUVIGIS MACARAIG

    089 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-2552 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO DIWA

    089 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-2586 May 30, 1951 - ANITA TOMACRUZ v. BEATRIZ B. VALERO

    089 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-2664 May 30, 1951 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAN TAN

    089 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-2715 May 30, 1951 - TERESA ALBERTO v. CASIMIRO MANANGHALA

    089 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-2819 May 30, 1951 - MARCIANA ESCOTO v. BENITO M. ARCILLA

    089 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2872 May 30, 1951 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES VARELA

    089 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-3004 May 30, 1951 - BENITA TOMIAS v. CONRADO TOMIAS

    089 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-3411 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENGRACIO ARLATINCO

    089 Phil 220

  • G.R. Nos. L-3491-93 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO HAMIANA

    089 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-3510 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MAGNAYE

    089 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-4179 May 30, 1951 - CRISANTO DE BORJA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    089 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-4663 May 30, 1951 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS v. CHIEF OF STAFF

    089 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-4670 May 30, 1951 - NICANOR MARONILLA-SEVA v. LORENZO B. ANDRADA

    089 Phil 252