THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CHUA HUY, LORENZO UY, CHUA TONG, TAN SI KEE, ANG UH ANG, WILLIAM HAO, YOUNG KIAT, GO KING AND JIMMY YOUNG, DEFENDANTS …

This was a prosecution for kidnapping and illegal detention filed
in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Over eight hundred pages of
typewritten testimony were taken besides numerous exhibits, and the
trial court has rendered an 113-page printed decision.

Stripped of non-essentials, the uncontroverted facts may be condensed as follows:

Joseph Dee, 20 years old, student at La Salle College and son of a
rich Chinese merchant, was kidnapped on . December 7, 1946.. He was
riding in the rear seat, of a Buick car driven by Ceferino Quiambao,
coming from his fiancee’s home on V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila,
when, at about 10 o’clock p.m., not far from that house, a jeep
apparently stalled in the middle of the street blocked the way of Dee’s
car. After the Buick stopped and Quiambao told a man who approached him
that he could not push the jeep with his car, as requested, because the
Buick’s fender was low, two men entered the sedan through the front
doors and two through the rear doors, one pair flanking Quiambao in the
front seat and the other pair sitting on both sides of Dee in the rear
compartment. Armed with pistols, the intruders threatened Dee and his
chauffeur with harm if they resisted or cried out for help. Then they
sealed Dee’s and Quiambao’s mouths and eyes with adhesive and drove to
a house on Vision street, Sampaloc, with one of the kidnappers at the
wheel. Dee’s car was afterwards taken to Dewey Boulevard where it was
abandoned, and recovered by the police the next day. The four men had
other companions who remained on or around the jeep when Dee and Quiambao were whisked off.

In the house on Vision street, Dee and Quiambao were kept until the
following night when they were removed in a hired 1946 Buick to a
rented house in barrio Caruhatan, Polo, Bulacan. In the latter house,
the two kidnapped men were locked up most of the time in a small
unventilated toilet room till January 6, 1947, and Dee was told that he
had been kidnapped for ransom. In the meantime, Dee’s father and his
fiancee’s father were contacted by.the Kidnappers by telephone and by
letters and told to come across with one million peso’s for Joseph
Dee’s release. And on various dates during Dee’s and Quiambao’s
detention, Dee was handed various letters to copy, and the copies with
Joseph Dee’s signatures were sent to his father and his fiancee’s
father by the kidnappers. In those letters, Dee was made to beg the
addressees to give what they could to spare his life and save him from
further sufferings.

In the end, on December 31, 1946, Dee’s father, Dee Hao Kim,
delivered to the driver of a car for hire, one Luna Guanzon, the
kidnappers’ emissary, a cardboard box containing P50,000 in bills.
Nevertheless Dee and Quiambao were not released.

In January, the Manila police were tipped by one of Dee’s and
Quiambao’s guards, a man. named Romeo Chicano, to the place of
confinement of the captives and these were rescued on January 6, 1947
by Manila plainclothesmen.

Thirteen men and one woman, all Chinese or of Chinese extraction,
were indicted and ten off them were arrested and put on trial. Of these
Juan Yu was acquitted and nine—60 King,, Chua Huy, Chua Tong, William
Hao, Jaime Young alias Jimmy and Ang Uh Ang—were found guilty as principals of the crime charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
except Go King who was given the supreme penalty. Young Kiat, Ian Si
Kee and Lorenzo Uy were pronounced guilty as accomplices and sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of from ten years and one day, prision mayor, to twenty years, reclusion temporal.
All the nine were further sentenced jointly and severally to pay Dee
Hao Kim P36,000.98, the unrecovered portion of the P50,000 paid by him,
and each to pay one-fourteenth of the costs. Manuel So alias Manuel Buenaobra, Sy Kao Su alias Elefante, John Doe and Mary Doe alias Fely had not been found.

Of the nine condemned men, all of whom appealed, Chua Hay, and Jaime Young have withdrawn their appeal.

The defendants-appellants set up alibis or denials of any
participation in the crime, thus raising the sole question of the
credibility or accuracy of observation of the witnesses for the
prosecution. In this decision it is only necessary for us to confine
our attention mainly to the evidence bearing on the identity of the
malefactors.

Joseph Dee testified that the man who opened the rear left door of
his car was Go King, adding that this accused levelled a nickle-plated
revolver at him. The man who stepped in through the opposite door and
seated himself at his (Dee’s) right was Elefante (one of the accused
who had not been apprehended). And he pointed to Chua Huy and Chua long
as the men who entered through the left and right front doors
respectively.

When Dee arose the next morning in the house on Vision street, the
tapes on his eyes were loose sufficiently to enable him to see one of
the men who were guarding him and his chauffeur. That man was Jimmy
Young. He not only recognized Jimmy Young but this accused talked to
him and told him that he knew some of Dee’s relatives in Zamboanga
where, Young said, he came from. Young also let him know that at 7:30,
when the chief would be back, Dee would be transferred to another
place. After, dusk, the chief did come, and told Dee and Quiambao to
put on their shoes and gave the order to go« Dee was led to the stairs
from which the chief carried him down to the car. Inside the car, the
chief handed him dark glasses and ordered him to wear them. Then he and
Quiambao were driven out of the city to a house which turned out to be
in Polo, Bulacan.

In that house, the glasses and the tapes were removed from his eyes
and he was told to relax. Then the chief explained in Chinese that he
had asked Dee’s father for a “donation” of P1,000,000 within three
days, with the warning that if the senior Dee did not comply the
following day, Joseph’s arm would be cut off, and if, within three days
thereafter, Dee Jr.’s father still failed to give the money, the boy
would be slain. The next day, Dee was given a letter written in Chinese
characters to copy and he obeyed. The man who gave Dee that letter was
the chief himself, but the one who wrote it was Jimmy Young. Jimmy
Young himself told him so at the police station after Young was
arrested. With that letter was enclosed a 20-peso bill. on. which the
chief told Dee to write his name in Chinese characters although he
wrote his name in Roman letters. He also copied Exhibits C, D, E and F
from models handed him by his captors. The note marked Exhibit F-2,
which was enclosed with Exhibit F, was handed to him by the chief at a
time when the latter was holding a. nickle-plated .45 caliber pistol.
The text of Exhibit G which he was also ordered to copy was brought to
him by Chua long.

Referring to the identity of the chief he had been referring to, Dee stated it was Go King.

Later in his examination in chief, Dee said that because he was ill
for a week on account of the stuffy condition of the water closet, he
was allowed to sleep in a bigger room two nights a week. The first
night permission was given him by the chief who was with him all that
night. The second permission was given him by Jimmy Young who was also
with him during the second night.

On cross-examination, Dee said he was well acquainted with Lorenzo
Uy, Juan Yu, Chua Tong, Go King, Chua Huy and Ang Uh Ang. Lorenzo Uy
and Juan Yu used to be his playmates in basketball; Tan Si Kee was at
one time his tenants’ cook; and he had known Chua Tong since Dee was
seven. He knew Chua Huy as driver of colorum cars in Ongpin
street, and Go King he came to know when this accused was working at
the U. P. bar during the Japanese occupation and later at the Black Cat
Night Club. As to Ang Uh Ang, Dee had done this accused many favors
with financial assistance, he declared.

The first time Dee talked with Tan Si Kee during his detention was
on December 29, the first day Chicano came to that place.to stand
guard. Dee said he asked Chicano for a glass of water but Chicano told
him to talk to Tan Si Kee. The second time he talked with Tan Si Kee
was on January 7, in the car in which they were riding with detectives
after the rescue. Tan Si Kee told him, he said, that he was unfortunate
because, according to Tan Si Kee, he had just arrived from Amoy and he
had only been hired as a cook. Dee added that from December 27 to
January 6, Tan Si Kee was the cook in the house where he was detained.

Ceferino Quiambao declared that the man who walked up to his car
and requested him to push the jeep was Chua Huy. This accused was also
one of the two who sat beside him and grabbed the Steering-wheel. The
other who sat at his right was Chua Tong. The latter, when the car was
already in motion, bound his hands and pasted adhesive on his eyes and
mouth. Quiambao stated that he did not recognize the two men who were
in the back seat.with Dee. All that he knew was that they were very
noisy talking in Chinese which he did not understand. “When he and Dee
were released, there was only one Chinese in the premises, and it was
Tan Si Kee.

Abraham Espiritu- was sworn to say that he was the encargado
of Quirino Gregorio’s house where the offended parties were detained in
Polo. He testified that on November 26, 1946, Tomas (Chua Tong), Fely
and Tony (Go King) came and said that they wanted to spend a vacation
in that house. Later those people talked with the owner in his
(witness’) presence in Gregorio’s office at the State Building in
Manila, and they moved in on December 1. He had known Chua Tong for the
first time in November, but with Tony he had been acquainted since
1928. Chua Tong and Fely were introduced to him as husband and wife.
Upon the occupation of the house by the trio, the witness and his
family transferred to a small nipa house nearby, on the same lot.
During the time the house was rented other Chinamen frequently came and
went. He noticed that there was always a guard at the stairs of the
house, the door was always closed, and the windows were only half open.
Go King, Lorenzo Uy, Young Kiat, Tan Si Kee and Chua Huy alternated as
guards.”They were the ones he saw there on the ground floor of the
house and * * * whenever we went to the house to get something, those
men blocked our way and asked us what we wanted.”

Romeo Chicano said that he lived on Benavides Street in Manila.
Tony (Go King) took him on December 31 to the house in Polo to act as
guard. There he stayed six days ending on January 6, 1947. During that
period “there were many who kept coming back.” They were Young Kiat,
Tan Si Kee, Lorenzo Uy, Chua Tong, William Hao, Ing Uh Ang and Go King.
There were others whom he did not see in court at the trial—about
three. He remembered the nickname of one of them, Elefante. The witness
and those persons all had arms. There were about 16 hand grenades and
18 pistols besides Thompson submach guns and grease guns. Chicano said
that he and Go King had known each other since the Americans arrived.
Go King had a companion, Jaime Young, when he (Go King) came to employ
Chicano. The two told him that the house he was to guard was in Lucena,
Tayabas, but he was taken to Caruhatan in Polo, Bulacan, instead.

Chicano stated that he reported the kidnapping to the Manila Police
and on January 6 Manila detectives released the kidnapped men and
arrested Tan Si Kee, the only one among the defendants who was in
Caruhatan at the time.

Luna Guanzon, residing in Bacoor, Cavite, and driver of a motor
vehicle for. hire, said that on December 31, 1946, at about o’clock in
the afternoon, Go King hired him at Plaza Sta. Cruz to take him to
Dewey Boulevard but directed him to turn back upon reaching the
Aristocrat Restaurant. Back in Plaza Sta. Cruz, Tony handed him a
letter, Exhibit C, to take to La Fortuna, 360 Sto. Cristo Street, and
he did as he was told. After handing the letter to somebody at the
address indicated he was told to come in and “they loaded a cardboard
box in the automobile.” Forthwith he returned to Plaza Sta. Cruz where
Tony stepped into the car and told him to drive on to Zurbaran Street.
In Zurbaran, Tony got off with the box, paid him P15, and dismissed
him. That was about six o’clock p.m. already. The next morning, at 4
o’clock, he met Tony in a restaurant at the corner of Azcarraga and a
street whose name he did not remember, eating, and he asked Tony where
he came from. He learned the name of this, accused about three days
before the trial because Detective Morales revealed it to him.

Enrique B. Morales, detective sergeant, testified that he
questioned all the ten accused in his office and took their statements,
which were introduced in evidence as Exhibits M to V. He said that he
arrested Tan Si Kee at barrio Caruhatan on January 6 at the house where
Joseph Dee and Ceferino Quiambao were detained. In the house, he found
an assortment of weapons including a grease gun, 50 loose rounds of
ammunition, 7 hand grenades, one .38 caliber revolver. He also found
one roll of unused adhesive, about three or four pieces of used
adhesive, one chain, and two padlocks. He went on to say that Tan Si
Kee was in charge of these objects and told him that Exhibit J, a
Thompson gun, belonged to Go King. Morales also mentioned the places
where the accused were arrested. Referring to the money paid the
kidnappers, he said that he recovered P3,850.00 of it from Chua Huy,
P10,000 from Hao Eng Hui, Go King’s cousin, at No. 23 Escolta, and P52
from Yu King alias Jimmy. He said Chua Huy admitted to him
that the P3,850 was part of P6,000 which he had received from Go King
out of the ransom, as his share, and that he had spent part and lost
part of the rest. Morales also said that Jaime Young alias
Jimmy admitted to him that the P52 seized from him was part of P1,000
which he had received from Go King. Referring to the recovery of
P10.0,000 from Hao Eng Hui, Morales said that Go King told him that he
(Go King) had given his cousin P15,000 for safekeeping out of the
P50,000 ransom money. However, according to Morales, Hao Eng Hui
assured him that he had received only P10,000 from Go King. Morales
also testified that Go King revealed to him that he had entrusted
P15,000 to a relative named Tek at 708 Tabora Street, also for
safekeeping, but, Morales said, none of this amount was found in Tek’s
possession.

Alleged confessions of the accused introduced in evidence were Chua
Huy’s (Exhibit N), Hao William’s (Exhibit O), Ang Uh«s (Exhibit P),
Young Kiat’s (Exhibit Q), Lorenzo Uy’s (Exhibit R), Chua Tong’s
(Exhibit S), Go King’s (Exhibit T), Yu Ping Eng’s (Exhibit U) and Tan
Si Kee’s (Exhibit V). All the accused repudiated their respective
statements alleging, among other things, that they had been wrung from
them through violence and intimidation.

They called Dr. David S. Cabrera, medical examiner of the Manila
Police Department, who testified that as such medical examiner he had
examined Chua Huy, William Hao, Young Kiat and Ang Uh Ang and issued on
January 15, 1947, medical certificates upon their request. According to
these certificates, Chua Huy had “reddish brown contusion, 6 cm. x 1
cm., in the anterior chest; yellowish red contusion, semi-circular in
shape, measuring 5 cm. x 3 cm., in the lower chest 5 spotty brownish,
contusion in the left anterior chest, and brownish scar, 1 cm. x 0.6
cm., in the lateral surface of the right ankle.” On William Hao, the
doctor found “diffuse yellowish discoloration of the skin, one
measuring 6 cm. x 3 cm , in the chest and another measuring 1 cm. x 1.5
cm., one inch above the left nipple and healing brownish scabs on both
knees.” On Young Kiat was found “diffuse yellowish discoloration of the
skin, measuring 5 cm. x 4 cm., over the midsternal region of the
anterior chest which would heal in two days spontaneously.” And Ang Uh
Ang had “multiple yellowish diffuse discoloration of the skin in the
left infraorbital region in the right anterior chest, in the left
anterior upper arm and in the right anterior upper arm.” All these
injuries, in Dr. Cabrera’s opinion, could have been inflicted by blows
with blunt objects and should have healed in from two to three days
from the date of the examination, :

Jose Cayabyab, a university student, testified that he and Go King
were cellmates in the old Bilibid Prison on Azcarraga street in the
early part of January and that once, when Go King was returned to the
cell after he had been taken out by a policeman, King complained of
pains and of having been maltreated. In answer to a leading question,
the witness said that Go King was bleeding, and in answer to the next
question he said that “those physical injuries were (caused by) the
policeman. who got him.”

With reference to their alleged complicity in the crime, the
accused alone took the stand on their behalf. Their testimony is
relatively brief and is limited mostly to protestations that they had
nothing to do with Dee’s and Quiambao’s kidnapping and detention.

That the defendants’ statements to the police were extorted by
physical force and therefore involuntary, there can be very little
doubt. The defendants’ injuries, certified by a physician in the employ
of the police department to be still fresh when he saw them, were
telltale corroboration of the charge of severe torture. They were of
such nature and seriousness as to preclude possibility of being
self-inflicted. For this reason, we are of the opinion that the court
below erred in admitting those statements and taking them into
consideration in its findings.

Nevertheless, without the alleged confessions there is still more
than enough.evidence to sustain the appellants’ conviction, although
the legal qualification of the participation of some of them will have
to be modified. The prosecution witnesses, with the possible exception
of Luna Guanzon, had no personal interest to advance or to protect, nor
had they any grudge to satisfy beyond Joseph Dee’s and Ceferino
Quiambao’s natural desire to see their kidnappers get their dessert.
And mistaken identity, as suggested by counsel for some of the
defendants, was unlikely. Having known the accused intimately before,
and seen them frequently in the course of, Dee’s and Quiambao’s
confinement, the said witnesses could not possibly have mistaken others
for the appellants.

Putting the scattered evidence together by way of a summary, the
record pictures these roles of two of the three leading defendants and
appellants.

Go King rented the house in Polo with Chua Tong and Fely. He sat on
one side of Dee in the back seat of Dee’s car and threatened Dee with a
pistol. He was one of the four men who blindfolded and gagged Dee and
Quiambao in said car and took the victims to Vision street where Dee
and Quiambao were kept awaiting icing’s return. When King reappeared he
told Dee and Quiambao to be ready, and he carried Dee to the waiting
automobile, which apparently had been brought by himself. In that
automobile King handed Dee a pair of dark glasses, had Dee put them on
for disguise, and he came along to Bulacan. He explained to Dee the
reason for his abduction and had Dee write the various letters sent to
Dee’s father and the father of Dee’s fiancee. He hired Guanzon to get
the promised ransom from Dee’s father and received the money afterward
from his messenger. It was upon his indication that a large part of
this money was recovered from his cousin.

Truly, Go King was the “chief”, the moving and directing spirit of the enterprise.

Chua Tong was one of the two men who flanked Quiambao in the front
seat, and rode on Dee’s car from Sta. Mesa to Vision street. He tied
Quiambao’s hands and put adhesive on Quiambao’s eyes and mouth to keep
this offended party from seeing and screaming. Chua Tong brought to Dee
In polo one of the paper is to be copied for Dee’s father. As he lived
on Vision street, very probably his was the dwelling where Dee and
Qulambao were detained before their removal to Polo. And Chua Tong with
Go King and Fely, Chua Tong’s wife or mistress who was in hiding at the
time of the trial, rented the house in that town.

Upon the above evidence, Go King and Chua Tong properly have been found guilty by the court a quo as coprincipals.

The defendants’ statements to the police discarded, the
participation of the other appellants in the crime consisted in
guarding the detained men to keep them from escaping. This
participation was simultaneous, with the commission of the crime if not
with its commencement nor previous thereto. As detention is an
essential element of the crime charged, as its name, definition and
gradation of the penalty therefor Imply, the crime was still in being
when Lorenzo Uy, Tan Si Kee, Ang Uh Ang, William Hao and Young Kiat
took a hand in it. However, we are not satisfied from the circumstances
of the case that the help given by these accused was indispensable to
the end proposed. Our opinion is that these defendants-are responsible
as accomplices only.

She crime committed is kidnapping with serious illegal detention
penalized in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 18, with reclusion perpetua to death, the
crime having been committed for ransom. It was attended by the
aggravating circumstances of night time and use of motor vehicle withut
any mitigating circumstance to upset them.

Upon all the foregoing considerations, Go King and Chua long, as
principals, are sentenced to death, and Lorenzo Uy, Tan Si Kee, Ing Uh
Ang, William Hao and YoungKiat, as accomplices, will suffer an
indeterminate imprisonment of from twelve years, prision mayor, to seventeen years and four months, reclusion temporal. For the rest,the appealed decision is affirmed, with costs against the appellants in proportionate shares.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.