G.R. No. L-38718. November 12, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BONIFACIO ADORNA Y QUINTO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PER CURIAM:
In the afternoon of October 29, 1971, seven-year old Marites
Unday and her cousin, eight-year old Wilfredo Unday, both 1st grade students of
the San Jose Elementary School, Quezon City, failed to return home after
classes. Subsequently, their parents
received demands for ransom. The two
unfortunate youngsters were later found stabbed to death on November 5, 1971.
After an investigation conducted by the Quezon City Police, an
information for Kidnapping For Ransom With Double Murder was filed in the Court
of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXI, Quezon City, against Bonifacio Adorna y
Quinto; Sotero Abaratique, alias “Pogi”; Rodrigo Gayo, alias
“Badoy”, as follows:
“That on or about the 29th day of October, 1971, and many days
thereafter, the above-named accused, moved by common design and unity of
purpose, perpetrated the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Double Murder in
the following unpardonable acts, to wit:
“One: That in the
afternoon of October 29, 1971, while Marites Unday, 7 years old, Grade one
pupil and daughter of NEDIS UNDAY, and Wilfredo Unday, 8 years old Grade one
pupil and son of LIDDY UNDAY, while infront of their school at San Jose
Elementary School, Quezon City, under the pretext of bringing them to their
parents, the above-named accused seized and kidnapped them and once in their
possession and custody, forcibly took them into hiding at the north bank of
Tullahan River, Bo. Capri, Novaliches, this City, for the purpose of keeping
them in hiding to extort ransom money from their parents, as a condition for
their safe return;
“Two: That when the
parents of the said children could not produce the amount demanded as ransom
money, all the accused, conspiring together, wilfully and maliciously killed
the said children, MARITES and WILFREDO by stabbing them several times on their
bodies with the attendant circumstances of the use of superior strength,
evident premeditation, and that the victims are of tender ages;
“Third: After killing
the children, they were left in the river bank and the accused went into
hiding, to the damage and prejudice of Marites and Wilfredo’s heirs in such
amount as may be awarded to them by law.
“Contrary to law and morals.”[1]
Only Bonifacio Adorna was apprehended and the two other
co-accused have remained at large.[2]
After arraignment, plea of not guilty on February 21, 1972, and
trial, the trial court, in its Decision dated April 8, 1974, convicted the
accused Adorna, with dispositive portion as follows:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused,
BONIFACIO ADORNA, guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime charged and,
therefore, sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH by
electrocution, in the manner prescribed by law, for the death of Marites Unday,
with the accessories of the law, and to pay the proportionate costs. He should indemnify the heirs of the said
Marites Unday in the amount of P12,000.00, plus the sum of P20,000.00 by way of
moral damages. For the death of Wilfredo
Unday, the said accused BONIFACIO ADORNA should likewise suffer the supreme
penalty of DEATH by electrocution, in the manner prescribed by law, with the
accessories of the law, and to pay the proportionate costs. He should indemnify the heirs of Wilfredo
Unday in the sum of P12,000.00 and the sum of P20,000.00, by way of moral damages.
“Let the records be forwarded to the Honorable Supreme Court,
for automatic review. The accused shall
remain in confinement at the National Penitentiary pending review of the
records by the Supreme Court, and should remain thereat until further order
from this Court.
“SO ORDERED.”[3]
The version of the prosecution is as follows:
The cousins Marites and Wilfredo, both surnamed Unday, grade one
pupils, attended their classes at the San Jose Elementary School on October 29,
1971. The young cousins never returned
home alive.[4]
On October 31, 1971, Diomedes Unday, father of Marites, and
Emilio Unday, father of Wilfredo, found a ransom note (Exh. “A”) near
the Ong Chu Tokwa Factory, at No. 2 Malaya Street, Quezon City, where they
work, demanding P10,000.00 for the release of the children. This was followed by a second ransom note,
(Exh. “B”) raising the amount demanded to P15,000.00, because the
kidnappers believed that the parents reported the matter to the
authorities. On November 5, 1971, a
third ransom note, (Exh. “C”) was received, reiterating the demand of
P15,000.00 for the release of the children.[5]
The ransom notes were all written by appellant Adorna who used to
live and work with the Unday brothers at the aforementioned “tokwa”
(soy bean) factory. During that time the
Unday brothers had ample opportunity to know the appellant and his handwriting.[6]
The Unday brothers followed the instructions in the ransom
notes. In cooperation with Detective
Marcos Viñas of the Quezon City Police Department, the Unday brothers placed
faked money bills inside a pail and left it at the second bridge in Balintawak,
Quezon City, to be picked up by the accused.
Notwithstanding police vigilance, the person who picked up the pail
escaped. That person, however, was
identified by Detective Arceo as the appellant Bonifacio Adorna.[7]
In the afternoon of November 5, 1971, the Unday brothers heard a
radio broadcast that the Unday children had been found dead on the bank of the
Tullahan River in Barrio Capri, Novaliches, Quezon City.8
The autopsy report on Marites Unday (Exh. “Q”) shows
she suffered four stab wounds on her chest, which were all fatal. Wilfredo Unday suffered four stab wounds, all
described as fatal, shown in Exhibit “U”.
According to the confession (Exh. “H”) of appellant
Adorna, he and his co-accused, after school hours on October 29, 1971, picked
up the two children Marites and Wilfredo on the pretext that their parents had
asked the accused to pick them up from the school. The accused brought the two children to the
north bank of the Tullahan River in Barrio Capri, Novaliches, Quezon City. They kept the two cousins for a few
days. On November 1, 1971, the appellant
and his co-accused stabbed the children and left them dead on the bank of the
Tullahan river.
Diomedes Unday, father of Marites, as overseer of the Ong Chu
Tokwa Factory, was responsible for the separation from employment of the three
accused for complicity in the loss of bicycles, lamps, clothes and
misappropriation of proceeds from the sale of “tokwa“. After their dismissal from work, the three
accused threatened the Unday brothers that someday, something will happen to
them and their families.[9]
Prosecution’s rebuttal evidence consists of the denial of
Investigator Marcos Viñas that appellant was maltreated during the
investigation and that of the owner of the tokwa factory Ong Chu who
stated that appellant was separated from employment because of his
wrongdoings. Appellant knew very well
the victims.[10]
The version of the defense is:
Appellant Adorna interposes an uncorroborated alibi that
on October 29, 1971, when the two children were kidnapped, he was in Calawaan,
Pasig, working with a certain “Mang Pitong“, catching shrimps
and other kinds of fish. That he worked
with “Mang Pitong“, since July 26, 1971 up to December 24,
1971.[11] He
denied participation in the crime and claimed he did not know the victims
Marites Unday and Wilfredo Unday.[12] He claimed that he had no
knowledge nor participation in the preparation of ransom notes, Exhs.
“A”, “B”, and “C”.[13]
Appellant alleged that he signed the confession Exhibit
“H” because he was maltreated by the police during the investigation
of the case.[14]
As correctly stated by the trial court, the vital issue to the
determination of the innocence or guilt of the appellant is the voluntariness
in the execution of the confession Exhibit “H”, in the absence of
direct evidence proving appellant’s participation in the crime.[15]
Appellant claims that he was a victim of third degree before he
was compelled to sign the extrajudicial confession Exhibit “H”. His claim stands uncorroborated.
Detective Marcos Viñas, said to be the officer who inflicted the
maltreatment, testified on rebuttal that no such maltreatment occured and it
was not Viñas who investigated the appellant.
Exhibit “H” was signed and sworn to before Fiscal Juanson of
Quezon City. These officials merely
performed their duties and no evidence was presented by the defense why
Detective Viñas and the other police investigators would falsely testify
against the appellant.
The extrajudicial confession Exhibit “H”, containing
six pages of questions and answers, is replete with many minor details that
could not have been known, much less supplied by the police investigators. The minor intimate details must have come
only from the appellant. Appellant knew
that the parents of the victims were trusted employees of the Ong Chu Tokwa
Factory. The accused were apparently
motivated to kidnap the victims by their desire to inflict vengeance on the
persons responsible for their separation from employment and in the belief that
the owner of the factory would supply the ransom money. That can be discerned from the fact that the
ransom notes were always left near the factory and said notes demanded the
telephone number of the factory. The
desperation of the accused when the ransom money was not given could be seen on
the face of the confession Exhibit “H”.
What appears very significant, however, to discredit appellant’s
claim of maltreatment to extract his confession, is appellant’s own admission
that during the time he was investigated and when he signed Exhibit
“H” “there were many persons coming in and going out of the
room.”[16]
It is very difficult to believe that the investigators of the Quezon City
Police would maltreat a suspect in public.
It is further very clear that appellant never told anybody of the
alleged maltreatment. He never sought
medical aid. He could not show any
physical signs of the maltreatment and he claimed for the first time said
maltreatment during the trial of the case.
Thus, overwhelming evidence points to the voluntariness of execution of
the extrajudicial confession Exhibit “H”, and no indications
otherwise appear to discredit the trial court’s conclusion on this issue.
As to the uncorroborated alibi of the appellant, suffice
it to say that the alleged “Mang Pitong” of Calawaan, Pasig,
with whom appellant was supposed to have worked in catching shrimps and fish on
October 29, 1971, was not even produced as a witness and no reason was given
why he was not produced as such. His
supposed friend Arturo Agno, said to be living with appellant at Calawaan,
Pasig, did not corroborate appellant’s alibi. Appellant was not able to explain why if it
were true that he was living and working in Calawaan, Pasig, he was arrested,
at No. 1314 Camarines St., Sta. Cruz, Manila.
Besides, even if credit is given to his alibi, Calawaan, Pasig,
is easily accessible by many forms of transportation to the scene of the crime
at Quezon City.
Supporting the voluntary extrajudicial confession Exhibit
“H” executed by appellant are the interlocking circumstantial
evidence presented by the prosecution.
The Unday brothers, parents of the victims, presented uncontroverted
proof that appellant lived and worked with them for a period of time at the Ong
Chu Tokwa Factory at No. 2 Malaya Street, Quezon City. Both brothers came to know the intimate
aspects of appellant’s life, including the latter’s handwriting. The motivation for the crime has been
established as Diomedes Unday was responsible for the separation from
employment of the trio, for which reason the accused threatened the Unday
brothers. The Unday brothers positively
identified the handwriting of the appellants in Exhibits “A”,
“B”, and “C”, the ransom notes. Appellant admitted that he lived and worked
with the Unday brothers from 1969 to 1971 in the “tokwa”
factory.[17]
He admitted that his co-accused were his co-employees in that factory.[18]
His co-accused were from the province of Samar and they shared common quarters.[19]
Appellant saw the members of the Unday families, including the victims, daily
during that time.[20] Accused Sotero Abaratique and
Rodrigo Gayo were called “Pogi” and “Badoy“,
respectively.[21]
Emilio Unday was known as “Eloy” and Diomedes Unday, as “Medes“.[22]
Appellant was acquainted with the vicinity of Mila’s Theater on A. Bonifacio
Avenue, Quezon City.[23] All the foregoing proven facts
and admissions harmoniously coincide with appellant’s statements in Exhibit
“H”.
The corpus delicti in this case has been established by
incontrovertible proof. It is clear that
the crime was committed and appellant’s participation in the crime has been
established beyond reasonable doubt by the totality of the prosecution evidence
presented, the voluntary confession Exhibit “H” and the supporting interlocking
circumstantial evidence. Guilt of the
appellant has been established not by the weakness of the evidence for the
defense, but the overwhelming strength and credibility of the evidence for the
prosecution. Appellant cannot claim that
he was not given due process by reason of his poverty as the record clearly
shows he was defended by competent counsel during the trial of this case.
WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Solicitor General, the
decision dated April 8, 1974, in Criminal Case No. Q-1805, is AFFIRMED in
toto, with costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., no part.
[1]
p. 1, Original Record.
[2]
p. 2, Decision, Criminal Case No. Q-1805.
[3]
pp. 21-22, Original Record.
[4]
pp. 3-4, t.s.n., July 14, 1972; pp. 12-14, t.s.n., August 21, 1972.
[5]
pp. 4-6, t.s.n., July 14, 1972; pp. 16-17, t.s.n., Aug. 21, 1972; pp. 6-7, t.s.n.,
July 14, 1972; pp. 22-23, t.s.n., Aug. 21, 1972; p. 8, t.s.n., July 14, 1972.
[6]
pp. 4-5, t.s.n., July 14, 1972; p. 17, t.s.n., August 21, 1972.
[7]
pp. 4-5; 17-19, t.s.n., August 21, 1972.
[9]
pp. 9-11, t.s.n., July 14, 1972.
[10]
pp. 3-12, t.s.n., Nov. 12, 1973; pp. 14-15, t.s.n., Nov. 12, 1973.
[11] pp. 3-4, t.s.n., Oct. 1, 1973.
[12] p. 4, t.s.n., Oct. 1, 1973.
[13] pp. 9-10, t.s.n., Oct. 1, 1973.
[14] pp. 11-21, t.s.n., Oct. 1, 1973; pp. 2-5, t.s.n.,
Oct. 3, 1973.
[15] pp. 9-10, Decision in Criminal Case No. Q-1805,
pp. 12-13, Original Record.
[16] pp. 2-3, t.s.n., October 3, 1973.
[17] pp. 5-6, t.s.n., October 3, 1973.
[18] pp. 6-7, t.s.n., October 3, 1973.
[19] pp. 12-13, t.s.n., October 3, 1973.
[20] p. 16, t.s.n., October 3, 1973.
[21] p. 2, t.s.n., October 3, 1973.
[22] pp. 2-3, t.s.n., October 17, 1973.
[23] pp. 8-9, t.s.n., October 17, 1973.