THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. ROSARIO LAO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ROSARIO LAO AND ALBERTO PADIAMAT, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Hon.
Hermogenes Caluag, presiding, finding Rosario Lao and Alberto Padiamat
guilty of kidnaping with murder and sentencing each of them to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and jointly and severally to
pay to the heirs of Rosa Baltazar the amount of P6,000. In the
information the other accused are Vicente Lao, Osias Feliciano and
Bienvenido Santos alias Ben Culot. Vicente Lao was acquitted. The case
against Osias Feliciano was dismissed and he was utilized as a
government witness. Bienvenido Santos had not yet been apprehended at
the time of the trial.

Vicente Lao and Rosario Lao are
common-law husband and wife, residents of 550 Echague, Manila. They are
engaged in poultry raising, maintaining a poultry farm at Mango Road,
San Francisco del Monte. They had a store at No. 532 Echague, Manila
where they sold the products of their poultry farm and poultry feed.

Osias Feliciano was a helper at the store earning a monthly salary of
P30.00 in December, 1953, and had been under the employ of the spouses
since December, 1953. Vicente Lao had another common-law wife in the
person of one Rosa Baltazar. He already had two children by her in the
month of December, 1953. She became his mistress as early as 1949, when
she was still living with her father in Manila. In November, 1953, she
was brought by Vicente Lao to the poultry farm at San Francisco del
Monte to reside there and to supervise the work in the poultry farm,
with the assistance of a maid by the name of Carmen Gutierrez.

Osias Feliciano testified as follows: About two weeks before December,
1953, Ben Santos came to the store of Mrs. Lao, with one Gorio. Before
Ben Santos and his companion left the store, Mrs. Lao gave the former
P5.00 for transportation. After they had left, Rosario Lao told Osias:
“You know, I want Rosa to be taken away from the poultry farm. Since
she had been living with your Manong, we have had bad luck in our
business.” (t.s.n., Vol. 3, p. 118). Osias) answered that it was Up to
her. The following day Ben Santos again came to the store between 2 and
3 p.m. and conferred with Mrs. Lao. That same afternoon a customer
bought poultry feed from the store and as Osias had received the
payment therefor he went to the table of Mrs. Lao to deliver the money
to her. As Osias walked behind Ben, who was in front of the table of
Mrs. Lao, Ben became alarmed and asked Mrs. Lao who he was, pointing to
Osias. Mrs. Lao answered: “Oh, don’t worry, he is a good man; we trust
him.” After that Ben followed Osias and asked him: “Are you really a
good boy? Can we really trust you? To which Osias answered: “Yes, you
can just ask Mrs. Lao how I am serving them.” (t.s.n., Vol. 3, pp.
121-122). Ben further informed Osias that they (Ben and a companion)
were taking Rosa from the poultry farm and then asked Osias if he slept
there, to which Osias answered that sometimes he did. Then Ben told him
that if he should go there to get the woman (Rosa) he must not cry for
help, and not to tell the truth should anybody ask him if he knew the
persons who entered the farm. Osias promised to do so. Ben stayed with
Mrs. Lao for about three minutes, and before he left, Mrs. Lao handed
him a P20.00 bill. In the evening of December 4, 1953, Osias slept in
the hatchery of the Lao poultry farm at San Francisco del Monte. At
about midnight, while Osias was asleep, he was suddenly awakened by a
stone thrown at his breast. He got up and saw Ben Santos and Padiamat.
Ben told him to tell Mrs. Lao that they were not able to take Rosa
because her doors were locked. After that Ben and Padiamat jumped over
the wall and went away. The following morning when Osias went to
Manila, he reported the matter to Mrs. Lao. Upon being thus informed
Mrs. Lao remarked: “Mahina sila. Bakit hindi sila pumasok.” (t.s.n.,
Vol. 2, p. 92).

The following day, December 5, at two in the
afternoon, Ben and Padiamat went to the store of the Lao’s at Echague
Street. They sat in front of the table of Mrs. Lao who ordered black
beer for them. It was then that Ben promised to take Rosa away on the
7th.

In the evening of December 7, Vicente and Rosario Lao,
together with Osias, went in their car to San Francisco del Monte,
arriving at their poultry farm at 11 o’clock that evening. Osias went
down the car and then ordered a boy working in the farm to help him
load five sacks of poultry feed in the automobile of the Laos. That
night the boys working in the poultry farm asked the Laos to allow them
to quit their work. However, the latter refused to grant them
permission to leave, and instead told them to retire in their
respective places, and then instructed Osias to spend the night in the
farm. Osias prepared a bed in the hatchery. Before going to bed Osias
put out the light but Rosa Baltazar asked him to open the light again
as she had not yet finished reading. That night while Osias was lying
in bed, he heard Rosa calling his name in a loud voice. As he turned
towards her, he saw two men walking beside her, the trio heading for
the hatchery. The two persons were Ben Santos and Alberto Padiamat.
Padiamat was in fatigue uniform with an MP arm band and a sergeant’s
chevron. Ben Santos was also wearing a fatigue uniform and an MP arm
band and a lieutenant’s bar in his jockey cap and on his collar. Ben
and Padiamat took Rosa to the back of the hatchery. There they climbed
over the wall to the other side, taking Rosa along with them.

The following day, December 8, the kidnapping of Rosa Baltazar was
reported to the Quezon, City police department, which endorsed the
matter to the secret service. But it was not until January 9 that the
mortal remains of Rosa Baltazar were found. A hole 2 feet by 4 feet was
noticed beside a creek about 6 to 10 meters away. When the hole was dug
they found the remains, a red sweater, a printed blouse, two
handkerchiefs, one tied around the neck and the other tied about the
hands of the victim. The post-mortem findings are as follows:

“A
portion consisting of the head, neck and upper part of trunk below the
mamma, to which the whole right upper extremity is attached. Soft
tissues in moderately mummified state are still present except in the
frontal and right parietal regions of the skull.

“Several loose dried bones entirely devoid of soft tissues consisting of—

Ten ribs—one fracture at shaft.
Five vertebra—one with broken body.
One scapula—only a portion.
One humerus—with broken off ends.
One radius—with broken off ends.
One ulna—with broken off ends.
Two pelvic bones—only portion of each.
Two femurs—with broken off ends.
Two tibia—with broken off ends.

“Abundant black straight hairs averaging 38.0 cm. long are present and still attached to scalp.

“Skull and cervical vertebrae intact.

“Anatomical features of parts indicate female sex.

“Probable age of the individual is below 22 years of age. (Exhibit “H”).

The clothing found near the remains were identified by the maid of Rosa
Baltazar. The teeth were also identified by Rosa’s dentist. There is no
question that the remains thus found on January 9 were those of the
kidnapped woman Rosa Baltazar.

One of the persons
investigated by the Quezon City detectives immediately after the
kidnapping was Osias Feliciano. During the investigation, he denied
knowing the persons who had taken Rosa Baltazar away from the farm the
previous night. Subsequently, however, he changed heart. He said that
as his conscience bothered him he decided to toll the truth and point
out the persons who had actually committed the crime. So accused
Alberto Padiamat was taken into custody and subjected to questioning by
the National Bureau of Investigation.

In a statement
(Exhibit “S”) dated January 13, 1954, Padiamat made a confession
admitting that it was he and Ben Santos who had taken away Rosa
Baltazar from the poultry farm of the Laos at Mango Road, Quezon City,
describing in detail the conferences that Ben Santos and he had with
Mrs. Lao prior to December 6 and 7, how Rosa Baltazar was taken away
from the poultry farm and brought to some distance therefrom and killed
by a blow with a mason’s sledge hammer found in a nearby quarry, and
stating further that after Rosa had been killed, he (Padiamat) was
ordered by Ben to dig a grave two feet wide, four feet long, and knee
deep, in which the body of Rosa Baltazar was interred. Padiamat’s
confession, Exhibit “S”, contains in detail the conferences that Osias
described in his testimony before the Court. It also states the fact
that upon receiving money from Mrs. Lao on December 5, after having
promised to kidnap Rosa on the 7th, Ben Santos and Alberto Padiamat
went to buy for themselves fatigue suits, MP arm bands, a sergeant’s
chevron and a lieutenant’s bar.

It is worthy to note that in
the same statement, Exhibit “S”, Padiamat declares that the day
following the abduction and killing of Rosa Baltazar, and after he had
rested the whole day, he and Ben Santos went to the store of Mrs. Lao;
that on that occasion Mrs. Lao told Ben that she had already learned
from Osias the news of what happened in the poultry farm; that Mrs. Lao
and Ben talked together and Mrs. Lao ordered beer for them; that later
Padiamat was asked by Ben to go out and so Padiamat went out and stayed
in a restaurant; that after he got tired waiting he went back to the
store and asked Ben to go home; that they went away and on the way home
Ben told Padiamat that Mrs. Lao had given him the sum of P400; that of
this sum Ben gave Padiamat P200 upon reaching Ben’s house; that about
one week thereafter Ben brought Padiamat again to the store of Mrs. Lao
in Echague and there Ben was given P200, of which amount he gave P100
to Padiamat.

On January 16, 1954, Padiamat again made
another statement confirming the various statements contained in
Exhibit “S”. This statement was introduced at the trial as Exhibit “T”.

At the trial Alberto Padiamat did not admit having signed Exhibit “S”
voluntarily, but explained that he signed it after having been given a
blow on the nose by Osias. He, however, denied the statements therein
to the effect that he and Ben had received money from Mrs. Lao, and
declared that it was Ben Santos who ordered him to wear a fatigue suit
and who directed where Rosa was to be taken. He also denied that it was
he who hit Rosa with a sledge hammer, declaring that it was Ben who
boxed Rosa Baltazar, as a result of which she died. But he admits that
it was he who dug the grave, upon orders of Ben Santos.

The
above evidence is, in short, the basis of the conclusion of the trial
court that the appellants are guilty of the offense charged. As
appellants are represented by different attorneys, and have presented
separate briefs, each of these will be considered separately.

We will now consider Padiamat’s counsel’s brief. It will be noted that
appellant Alberto Padiamat, while admitting having accompanied Ben
Santos in the kidnapping of Rosa Baltazar, claims not to have done
anything except to keep Ben Santos company and to dig a grave after
Rosa was killed by fistic blows given by Ben Santos. Counsel de oficio
argues that that portion of his confession, Exhibit “S”, relating to
his participation in the killing of Rosa Baltazar, by delivering blows
on the back part of her head with a mason’s sledge hammer, cannot
possibly be true because had the sledge hammer introduced in court
really been used to kill Rosa, the blow delivered at the back of the
head would have produced a fracture in the skull and there would have
been blood stains on the sledge hammer. However, it is argued, the
medical examination showed that the skull was not fractured, and
neither were blood stains found on the sledge hammer. The argument
would be valid if there were evidence to show that the blow given was a
strong one. However, there is no statement in Exhibit “S” that would
indicate how strong the blow was. Since the blow came from behind, it
is possible that only a slight blow was delivered, sufficient to down
and kill her without producing a fracture in her skull. As to the
absence of blood stains in the sledge hammer, it is not shown that the
hammer had never been used for any other purpose after Rosa Baltazar
was killed. In all probability it must somehow have been used during
the period between December 7 and January 8, and the use had erased the
blood stains, if there had been any. Counsel further argues that in the
confession Padiamat and Ben returned the sledge hammer and shovel to
the stone quarry near the place where the body was interred, when as a
matter of fact the same were found in the house of Ben Santos. In
answer to this argument, it may be stated that Ben Santos may have
later on taken the hammer and shovel to his house in order to avoid
detection, for fear that if the hammer and shovel were found in the
quarry near the grave, identification of the owners of said instruments
might eventually lead to the perpetrators of the crime. So we believe
said instruments may have been removed from the stone quarry in which
they were dumped, on the very same evening when the crime was committed
or soon thereafter.

As appellant Padiamat admits haying
accompanied Ben Santos in the kidnapping of Rosa Baltazar, we do not
believe that he merely performed the part of a spectator without
actually helping Ben Santos in the commission of the crime. If, as
Padiamat himself admits, he received orders from Ben Santos, it does
not seem at all possible that Padiamat did not take part in the killing
of Rosa Baltazar. But even admitting that his participation consisted
merely in helping Ben Santos kidnap and bury the remains of the victim,
that would not relieve him from any responsibility.

At any
rate, we are not convinced about the truth of his modified story and we
are more inclined to think that his confession, Exhibit “S”, contains
the true facts and circumstances surrounding the killing, no claim
having been made and no satisfactory evidence having been submitted by
him to prove that his confession was secured through force,
intimidation or threat.

Counsel for appellant Rosario Lao
argue that what makes the testimony of Osias Feliciano unreliable is
the fact that he never once disclosed the plot to Vicente Lao, his
master. The evidence, however, does not indicate that Osias worked
directly under Vicente Lao so as to make Osias owe loyalty to him and
not to his wife. Osias worked directly under Mrs. Lao, took orders from
her and, perhaps, received his salary from her, thus making him more
close and loyal to her than to her husband.

The presence of
Osias in the poultry farm from which Rosa was taken away and his
presence during the conferences between Rosario Lao and Ben Santos and
later between Rosario Lao and Ben Santos and Padiamat would, it is also
claimed, indicate the improbability of Osias’ testimony. We think
otherwise. Osias must have been brought to the poultry farm on the
night of December 7 on orders of Mrs. Lao, in order to check whether or
not the conspiracy was actually being carried out. This is very natural
indeed. The presence of Osias at the conferences is explained by the
fact that Osias was a helper in the store, running errands, acting as
sales clerk, etc. Naturally, he was in the store on those occasions
when Mrs. Lao, Santos and Padiamat planned the killing of Rosa Baltazar.

Neither do we find any improbability in the incidents surrounding the
taking away of Rosa Baltazar, as Osias described them. Osias knew when
the two men came, that they were going to take Rosa away. As he had
been taken into confidence by Mrs. Lao, it was but natural for him to
pretend not to recognize the two men clad in army uniform.

We make the following observations on the argument of counsel that
Osias’ story is unworthy of belief. A person who refuses to believe can
always find fault with any minor incident which is inconsistent with
his own belief. So it is with counsel for the appellant Rosario Lao.
They refused to believe in the testimony of Osias and, therefore, finds
reason or ground for suspecting every statement he made. But this Court
is duty-bound to review the evidence free from bias or prejudice. It is
in this light that we have read the testimony of Osias as well as the
testimonies of the witnesses for the defense. And our conviction after
an impartial reading of the testimonies and other evidence, is that
Osias told the truth. His story is not only rational, logical and
direct but also corroborated in most of its essential details by the
facts stated in the confession of the other appellant, Padiamat. We
also take into account that the judge below who heard the witnesses
testify believed the testimony of Osias. With this additional
circumstance, we find no reason for refusing to believe his testimony.

Resuming what has been stated above, we find that the evidence
submitted at the trial proves beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellants Alberto Padiamat and Rosario Lao, participated in the
commission of the crime, the former as principal by direct
participation and the latter as principal by induction. The crime
committed is not kidnapping with murder as stated in the title of the
information, but murder, for the reason that the conspirators had
planned to commit the latter crime, not that of kidnapping her first,
and killing her later. (People vs. Camo, 91 Phil., 240). The crime is
attended by the following qualifying and aggravating circumstances: On
the part of Alberto Padiamat by the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation, and the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity, abuse
of superior strength and consideration of a price or reward; in the
case of Rosario Lao, by the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation. The appellant Padiamat should be sentenced to the
supreme penalty of death but considering that he played merely a
secondary role in the commission of the crime, there is lack of
sufficient vote to impose said penalty; his sentence is, therefore,
reduced to that of reclusion perpetua. Rosario Lao is sentenced also to reclusion perpetua. Both of them are to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, jointly and severally, in the sum of P6,000. with costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.