THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CERILO DE LEON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This case is similar to the Lindberg case where the incident took place
in Hopewell, New Jersey, the Garden State, many, many years ago. It is
about a boy of tender years who was kidnapped for ransom and then
killed. In the cold and legalese words of the information which was
filed in Criminal Case No. 198 of the defunct Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur, the crime was said to have been committed as follows:

“That on or about and within the period embraced from September
2, 1970 up to and in­cluding September 10, 1970, in the City of Naga,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent and/or for the purpose of extorting
ran­som, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one
another, being all private individuals, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and illegally take and kidnap one RAUL ODIAMAR Y VENERACION, a
7-year old son of the herein complaining witness, SAMUEL ODIAMAR Y
FLORECE, and the above accused, once in custody of said minor child,
did, then and there ask and demand from the father ransom in the amount
of P20,000.00, Philippine Currency, and for which only the sum of
P1,000.00 was given by the complainant to the herein accused and then
the latter, accused, with intent to kill, by means of treachery, taking
advantage of superior strength and by employing means to insure or
afford impunity, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously
and unmercifully hack the right knee and bash the head of the child RAUL
ODIAMAR Y VENERACION, thereby said accused causing the inflicting fatal
and mortal wounds on the vital parts of the body of the said victim
causing the instantaneous death of the latter. ” (Expediente, p. 132.)

The “above-named accused” were: CERILO DE LEON, ARMANDO REMO, ANGEL
VALENCIA, DOMINGO VALENCIA, FRANCISCO JESALVA, JOSE ARANDIA and BERNARDO
FIEJOO who all pleaded not guilty.

In the course of the trial, the prosecution moved for the discharge of
JOSE ARANDIA so that he could be utilized as a state witness. The
motion was granted.

The prosecution presented twenty-one (21) witnesses; the defense had a
total of twenty-five (25) witnesses. The transcript is so bulky that it
is more convenient to reckon it by weight rather than by the number of
pages.

The decision of the trial court is equally weighty for it consists of
222 pages and the reason is not difficult to perceive – it contains
unnecessary details which did not improve its quality, thus:

“At about 4:00 o’clock of the same day, September 2, 1970, Cerilo
de Leon borrowed from Graciano Badilla the Cony (Exhibit H-2) telling
the latter that he had a date. Graciano Badilla gave him the Cony and
the accused Cerilo de Leon drove the Cony himself and proceeded along
Peñafrancia Avenue and on passing in front of the Alatco station Cerilo
de Leon saw Jose Arandia. The former called the latter and asked him to
accompany him, Cerilo de Leon, being the “bilas” of Graciano Badilla,
owner of the Cony he permanently drives everyday, and having been once
his chief in the Saldaña Lines when Cerilo de Leon acted as its Manager
while its owner, Mr. Saldaña was on a honeymoon, readily acceded and
went, sitting himself beside De Leon in the front seat of the Cony. De
Leon continued driving the Cony himself and they proceeded along
Peñafrancia Avenue towards the North. On reaching Santonja Street they
turned left and upon reaching Elias Angeles Street they turned right
towards the junction of Bagumbayan and Elias Angeles Streets and turned
left again to Ateneo Avenue. On reaching the gate of the Naga Parochial
School along Ateneo Avenue, Cerilo stopped and parked the Cony in front
of the gate, and alighted therefrom, telling Arandia to wait for him as
he will just fetch somebody. ” (Idem, pp. 1037-1038.)

The decision could have simply stated that Cerilo borrowed a Cony
automobile from Graciano and while driving it he met Jose, a former
driver of Saldaña Lines which he managed for a short time and together
they went to the Naga Parochial School. The excruciating details
especially the left and right turns clutter the decision and distract
one’s attention. At any rate, REMO, the VALENCIA’S, JESALVA and FIEJOO
were acquitted “for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt.”
CERILO DE LEON was found guilty and sentenced to death and ordered “to
indemnify the heirs of Raul Veneracion Odiamar the sum of Twelve
Thousand (P12,000.00) Pesos; to pay Samuel Odiamar the sum of P920.00
part of the ransom money received by the accused, Cerilo de Leon; and to
pay the proportionate part of the costs in this case.” (Idem, pp. 1250-1251.)

The People’s counterstatement of facts is an edited version of the lengthy statement of the trial court as follows:

“Samuel Odiamar and Luz Veneracion are husband and wife with
several children, the eldest among them being Raul who at the time of
the in­cident on September 2, 1970 was almost eight years old (Exh. A).
Samuel Odiamar, the father of Raul was formerly employed as Cashier at
the Bicol Savings and Loan Association, BISALA for short, in Naga City.
Among his friends and co-emplo­yees were the accused Cerilo de Leon,
Armando Remo, Loan Officer of BISALA, Angel Valencia and Bernardo Fiejoo
who were all holding respon­sible positions in said banking
institution, except Bernardo Fiejoo who was a security guard. The
accused, together with Samuel Odiamar, as a form of relaxation, used to
indulge in gambling among themselves. The accused Francisco Jesalva is
an employee of the Provincial Treasurer’s Office of the province of
Camarines Sur. Domingo Valencia is a younger brother of Angel Valencia.

“On January 5, 1970, Samuel Odiamar resigned as cashier. He
intended to transfer to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. While thus
employed, he continued to join the gambling sessions. As luck had it,
Samuel Odiamar seemed to have always won in these gambling sessions and
the accused Cerilo de Leon and Francisco Jesalva were often the heavy
losers. Consequently, Cerilo de Leon in­curred indebtedness to Samuel
Odiamar. Checks issued in payment of his gambling losses to Samuel
Odiamar bounced or were dishonored by the bank upon which they were
drawn. (Vol. I, pp. 119-121, t.s.n.)

“With this factual setting, Samuel Odiamar’s eldest son, Raul, who
was then studying at the Naga Parochial School in Naga City did not
return from school in the afternoon of September 2, 1970. Why Raul did
not return from school is supplied by the testimony of former accused
Jose Arandia, now state witness.

“Jose Arandia was a driver of a vehicle, com­monly called “Cony”
(Exh. H-2), owned and ope­rated by Graciano Badilla, the brother-in-law
(bilas) of appellant Cerilo de Leon. On September 2, 1970 Jose Arandia,
after driving the Cony since early in the evening of the preceding
night, returned the Cony to its garage at noon of September 2, 1970
(Vol. III, p. 5, t.s.n.). At about 4:00 o’clock of the same day,
September 2, 1970, appellant Cerilo de Leon borrowed the Cony from
Graciano Badilla as he had a date. Graciano Badilla lent him the Cony
and the appellant drove it away. While passing in front of the Alatco
Station, the ap­pellant saw Jose Arandia. Appellant Cerilo de Leon
called Arandia and asked the latter to accompany him. Jose Arandia
readily acceded as appellant Cerilo de Leon was the brother-in-law
(bilas) of Badilla, owner and operator of the Cony.

“The two proceeded to Ateneo Avenue. On reaching the gate of the
Naga Parochial School appellant Cerilo de Leon stopped and parked the
Cony in front of the gate. He alighted telling Arandia to wait for him
as he will just fetch somebody. Five minutes later, the appellant
returned, this time with a child about four (4) feet tall, wearing white
T-shirt, with letters NPS on the breast of the T-shirt which stand for
Naga Parochial School, Khaki short pants, white socks and black shoes
with a school bag slung on his shoulders. Arandia was instructed to
drive the Cony and told that they will conduct the boy to his house at
San Agustin, Canaman, Camarines Sur, as it was then raining at the time.
On passing the Philippine Constabulary check-point along the road in
Paras, Canaman, the boy remarked that they had already passed their
house in San Agustin, but appellant Cerilo de Leon told the boy not to
mind it because they will just go to Calabanga to get something and he
would be taken home on their return. Upon reaching Calabanga, they
turned right to the road going to Tinambac. On reaching Ratay Bridge,
the appellant alighted and went to the back of the Cony. He covered the
vehicle’s plate number with a cardboard similar in size to the plate of
the Cony, but bearing a different number. He then went to the front
and did the same, after which, Jose Arandia was told to proceed, which
the latter did. Fifty meters away from the National Road on the road to
Camuning, Jose Arandia was told to stop and to alight from the Cony.
He was instructed to wait until the appellant and the child returned,
because they would get something from Camuning. Arandia did as he was
told. He alighted from the Cony and appellant drove it himself. (Vol.
II, pp. 23-24, t.s.n.)

“What transpired in Camuning after Arandia was left behind is
supplied by the testimony of pro­secution witness Edmundo Dualan, a
worker in the coconut plantation of Felix Gutierrez, uncle of the
appellant.

“When the appellant arrived at Camuning in the coconut plantation
of his uncle, Felix Gutier­rez, he parked the Cony near the latter’s
house and approached Edmundo Dualan and Luisa Sami­niano who were in the
copra shed. Cerilo told them that he wanted to have some young
coconuts. The house of Felix Gutierrez where the Cony was parked is
about 100 meters from the copra shed. The child seated himself on a
piece of wood and the appellant did the same. It was at this time that
Felix Gutierrez arrived from Naga City. Edmundo Dualan told him that
the appellant was asking for young coconuts. (Vol. II, p. 150, t.s.n.)
After being permitted by Felix Gutier­rez to get some young coconuts for
the appellant, Edmundo Dualan went to his house to get a “kawit” or
scythe with which to get the young coconuts. When he went back to the
copra shed, he told his companion and helper, Luis Saminiano, to gather
young coconuts, and while Saminiano was gathering young coconuts, he
stayed at the copra shed because it was rain­ing. After the young
coconuts were gathered by Saminiano, they tied them together in pairs.
The appellant then instructed the two to load the young coconuts in the
Cony. After loading them at the rear compartment of the vehicle,
Saminiano and Dualan went back to the copra shed. When they returned,
they found the appellant alone in the copra shed. (Vol. II, p. 154,
t.s.n.) At first Dualan was unmindful of the child whom he thought had
been sent on an errand. The appellant asked Dualan to get a spoon which
he would use in eating young coconuts. Dualan went to the house
nearest the copra shed and borrowed a spoon. When he returned to the
copra shed and as he handed the spoon to the appellant, Dualan saw the
child in the pit (Vol. II, p. 155, t.s.n.) which was about 3 meters
deep, more or less. This pit is the place where a fire is kindled in
order to dry copra. (Vol. II, p. 156, t.s.n.). When Dualan saw the
boy, he (boy) had his hands raised, waving, and uttering words which
Dualan could not understand. Upon seeing the boy in that condition,
Dualan told the appellant that the child fell into the pit, so Luis
Saminiano also ran and he and Dualan together pulled the boy out of the
pit. Appellant was just about ‘isang dipa’ from the pit and he merely
said ‘siyanga pala nahulog ang kasama ko’. (Vol. p. 158, t.s.n.)
Immediately after Dualan and Saminiano had pulled the boy out of the
pit, the boy told the appellant ‘I will report you to my father for
having pushed me into the pit.’ (Vol. II, p. 160, t.s.n.); the boy had a
bleeding wound on his forehead. According to Dualan, the child
companion of the appellant was 8 years old, wearing white T-shirt, khaki
short pants, white pair of socks and black pair of shoes (Vol. II, p.
144, t.s.n.) Appellant did not answer the boy’s statement that he would
report to his father. The appellant kept silent so, Dualan suggested to
the appellant that he should bring the boy to a doctor, and appellant
promised to do so. Appellant warned Dualan not to tell Felix Gutierrez
what had happened. The appellant decided to leave and Dualan assisted
the child in going back to the Cony. With ap­pellant at the wheels of
the Cony, they started on their way back.

“As the appellant and the child were approaching the place where
Jose Arandia had been left behind, the latter observed that the plate
number at the front of the Cony was also changed. The plate number was
already 20-9. (Vol. II, pp. 20-21, t.s.n.). Appellant stopped the Cony
and asked Arandia to drive the Cony again so that from then on, the
latter drove the Cony with the child seated in between him and the
appellant in the front seat. (Vol. III, p. 25, t.s.n.). Jose Arandia
noticed that the T-shirt of the child had blood stains and there was a
wound on his fore­head. Arandia inquired as to what happened to the
child, but both the appellant and the child remained silent. On
reaching Ratay Bridge, Jose Arandia was told to stop the Cony.
Appellant alighted, went to the back of the Cony and removed the
cardboard which he had placed to cover the true plate number of the
Cony. He then went to the front and did the same, after which he threw
the two pieces of card­board down the bridge into the river. (Vol. III,
p. 26, t.s.n.). Appellant returned to the Cony and urged Arandia to
move on towards Naga. On passing the Municipality of Bombon, but before
reaching Magaras on the way to Naga, the appellant put a handkerchief
into the boy’s mouth to gag him. Arandia stopped the Cony in order to
help the appellant gag the boy (Vol. III, p. 27, t.s.n.), and tied the
handkerchief at the back of the head of the child. (Vol. III, p. 28,
t.s.n.). While the appellant was holding the boy with his right hand
he, at the same time, pressed the child with his left shoulder to Jose
Arandia. (Vol. III, p. 29, t.s.n.). After this, the appellant told
Arandia to move on, so he started the Cony and proceeded towards the
direction of Naga City. On the way, appellant pushed the child in front
to the floor of the Cony, obviously to hide the child from being seen
from the outside. While the boy was thus in a crawling position in
front of the floor of the Cony, the appellant had his two legs above the
child while his feet were resting on the front compartment of the Cony.
At the same time, the appellant was holding the back portion of the
T-shirt of the child with his right hand. (Vol. III, p. 31, t.s.n.).
On reaching the corner of Libaton and Bagumbayan streets, the appellant
ordered Arandia to turn left and go to Pacol. On reaching the place
past the house of Judge Palacio, Arandia was ordered to turn around back
to the direction a Naga City, which he did. At this instance,
appellant took the school bag of the child (Exh. I) from behind the
front seat (Vol. III, p. 32, t.s.n.) and threw it on the right side of
the road going to Naga. Then they proceeded on their way. On reaching
Libaton street again, they turned right and then turned left at
Bagumbayan. On reaching P. Burgos street near the Holiday Hotel, they
turned right towards Igualdad street, and then turned left. On reaching
Abella street, the ap­pellant told Aranda ‘we are going to Camaligon,
Joe’, so the latter turned right on Abella street. While they were in
front of the Alatco compound at Abella street, a jeep overtook them, and
as the light of the Cony hit the rear portion of the jeep, the
appellant waved his hand signalling to Domingo and Angel Valencia who
were seated at the rear portion of the jeep.

“On reaching the crossing leading to the River Control Office in
Camaligan, Arandia stopped the cony, but appellant told him ‘it is not
there Joe, it is further ahead’. He backed the car and drove fur­ther
ahead, and on reaching the crossing leading to the De Guzman compound,
Jose Arandia saw Domingo and Angel Valencia 30 meters from the crossing.
He stopped the Cony near the two and switched off the light upon
instruction of the appellant. Before the appellant alighted from the
Cony, he told Arandia to return the vehicle. Appel­lant then opened the
door and alighted from the Cony and as he was getting his artificial
arm from the vehicle’s compartment, the child tried to escape and run
towards the front of the Cony. (Vol. III, p. 36, t.s.n.) But Domingo
Valencia caught the left arm of the child while Angel Valencia caught
his right arm. Appellant ran towards them and hit the child with his
artificial arm, hitting him on the head at a point 2 inches above his
neck and the child quivered. The appellant exclaimed, ‘it is bet­ter to
finish off the child because if we let him loose alive, he knows all of
us’. (Vol. III, p. 37, t.s.n.) On hearing this, Arandia drove away the
Cony and saw Angel Valencia and Domingo Va­lencia carrying the child,
with Domingo Valen­cia holding the child by his armpits and Angel
Va­lencia holding the two legs of the child, towards the inside of the
De Guzman Compound. (Vol. II, pp. 36-38, t.s.n.)

“In the meanwhile, when Raul Odiamar failed to return from school,
his mother became worried. She went to the town of Lagonoy that same
evening to notify her husband, Samuel Odiamar, who was then in that
town, that their child, Raul was missing. Arriving that same evening in
Naga City, they searched for Raul, going to the police precinct and
then to the hospital. Mrs. Odiamar made a public appeal on the radio
about her missing son. All these brought negative results. The search
for Raul continued the following morning, September 3, 1970. About 9:00
o’clock that morning the spouses Samuel and Luz Odiamar met and stopped
the accused Angel Valencia and Armando Remo. It was then that the
Odiamars were informed by Angel Valencia of a ransom note con­tained in
an envelope which Angel Valencia earlier delivered to the house of the
Odiamars in San Agustin, Canaman. It appears that earlier that morning,
the letter which subsequently was found to contain a ransom note, and
addressed to ‘Mr. Samuel Odiamar, Cashier, Bicol Savings and Loan
Association, Naga City’ was found by the accused Bernardo Fiejoo inside
the Office of the Bicol Savings and Loan Association (BISALA).
Likewise, it appears that when Angel Valencia brought the letter to the
house of Samuel Odiamar, the latter and his wife were not there and that
the letter was opened, upon the insistence of accused Armando Remo in
the presence of Mrs. Rosario Llaguno Veneracion, mother of Mrs. Odiamar.
Samuel Odiamar read the letter. A copy of the letter was subsequently
made, which copy was brought to the Headquarters of the Philippine
Constabulary. A photostat copy is attached to the records of this case
as Exhibit C and reads as follows:

‘YOUR GOOD BOY IS IN GOOD HANDS… DON’T WORRY.

‘You are our number 5 client here in Camarines Sur, we expect the same full cooperation from you man.

‘INSTRUCTIONS:

‘(a) We demand P20,000.00 Pesos all in P20.00 denominations in exchange for the life of your boy

‘(b) Wrap the money properly in a newspaper, place inside a 5¢ plastic bag, then wrap in a newspaper again

‘(c) At about 10:00 to 10:15 P.M. a CONY will park in front of
HOLIDAY HOTEL. Instruct the driver to bring you to NORDIA, our car will
follow you at a distance. Place the money under the seat of the cony
rear portion so we can see you from behind DON’T give any further
instruction to the driver it might prejudiced you

‘(d) WEAR white long sleeves shirt during that day SEPTEMBER 4,
1970. It’s the date 10:00 to 10:15 P.M. in front of the HOLIDAY HOTEL.
After we inspect the money which we shall get from under the CONY back
seat someone will approach you in­side the NORDIA club and will give you
instructions where you will get your boy

‘SHOULD YOU FAIL:

‘(a) We will send you back your boy in two equal installments

‘(b) Our food supply for your boy is good only until September 4 we cannot afford to be staying long

‘SHOULD YOU HIRE PERSONAL SPIES OR ‘SHOULD YOU REPORT TO ANY AUTHORITY:

‘(a) We will surely know it, by then we lost nothing

While you might lost the following:

‘(1) The money intended for us (If in case the spies or
authorities are tempted. We have had that experiences so many times
before, we would like to inform you in advance so you won’t commit the
same error.)

‘SHOULD SOMETHING UNEXPECTED HAPPEN:

‘OUR GROUP IS A SYNDICATE, WE WERE IN THIS BUSINESS FOR ALMOST
12 YEARS NOW YOU HAD BEEN OUR TARGET SINCE 1968. BETTER BE COOPERATIVE.

NOTE:

‘Return this letter together with the money. It’s part of the bargain Good Luck …’

“While Samuel Odiamar was reading the ransom note, Angel Valencia
was present and a little while later Remo arrived and took Samuel
Odiamar to the kitchen. Samuel told Remo to go to his sister Linda
Odiamar and to inform Judge Llaguno. The government authorities were
likewise in­formed about the ransom note. Col. Igual, the PC Provincial
Commander in Camarines Sur called for a secret conference at Lindez
Hotel and among those who attended were Remo, Angel Valencia and Mr. and
Mrs. Samuel Odiamar. In the conference, it was reported by Col. Igual
that he had talked with a manager of a bank who would lend the amount of
P20,000.00 in mutilated bills which will be used in paying the ransom
money.

“The following day, September 4, 1970, Samuel Odiamar was informed
that there was a change of plan as the P20,000.00 mutilated bills would
not be availa­ble. Another Conference was held at the Complex Services
in the office of Alfonso Ocampo. In this conference, it was agreed
that only P1,000.00 would be paid initially but the same would be
accompanied with a letter of appeal.

“In the meanwhile, still on September 3, 1970, at about 6:00
o’clock p.m., Jose Arandia plied his route, driving again the same Cony
(Exh. H). About 9:00 o’clock p.m. that same day, the appellant rode in
his Cony and told him ‘you beware of imparting to the authority because
the eyes of my companions are focused on you. Lest the members of your
family may be in danger’. Arandia just answered ‘no’. After going
around the poblacion of Naga City and on reaching the Holidal Hotel, the
appellant disembarked while Arandia continued to ply his trade. (Vol.
III, pp. 43-44, t. s. n.)

“The following day September 4, 1970, Jose Arandia drove the Cony
and again plied his trade starting at 6:00 o’clock p.m. (Vol. III, p.
44, t.s.n.) At about 7:00 o’clock p.m. that night while driving near the
Holiday Hotel, he was called by the appellant. (Vol. III, p. 44,
t.s.n.) Appellant was then near the monument of the 15 martyrs in front
of the Holiday Hotel. After having parked the Cony in front of the
Holiday Hotel, the appellant approached Arandia and told him, he
(appellant) would like to hire the car ‘x x x, I will just be the one to
drive it’. Arandia told the appellant that he could not give the Cony
to him because it was given to him by Baby (Graciano Badilla); however,
he told the appellant that if the latter needed the car to just let him
know and he would drive it. It was then that the appellant told Arandia
to park his Cony at 9:00 o’clock p.m. near the plaza of the 15 martyrs
because he would need it (Vol. III, p. 45, t.s.n.) So, Arandia continued
plying his route and about 9:00 o’clock p.m., more or less, he parked
the Cony near the 15 martyrs monument in front of the Holiday Hotel as
per instructions by the ap­pellant. There, a male passenger boarded the
Cony. (Vol. III, p. 46, t.s.n.) He was wearing a white shirt with long
sleeves, and colored pants. (Vol. III, p. 47, t.s.n.) On instruction
of the passenger, Arandia took him to Nordia near the cocktail lounge
where his passenger disembarked and paid him P1.00. This passenger was
Samuel Odiamar. (Vol III, p. 47, t.s.n.) Arandia re­turned to the
Centre and parked near the Holiday Hotel near the 15 martyrs when
another passenger boarded his Cony going to Nordia. He brought him
there and returned immediately to the centre (Vol. III, p. 48, t.s.n.),
where he parked his Cony in front of the Holiday Hotel. He alighted and
talked with other drivers who were then around and while thus engaged
in conversation with the other drivers, he saw something wrapped on the
floor of his Cony on the right side near the rear seat. (Vol. III, p.
49, t.s.n.) He took the wrapped item, put it behind the driver’s seat in
front, and told the drivers with whom he was talking that he would
first take coffee. Arandia went to Concepcion Pequiña, to the Flying A
Gasoline station and had his Cony placed on the wash rack. (Vol. III,
p. 50, t.s.n.) He took the wrapped bundle, opened it and found money in
P20.00 bills and two envelopes inside a plastic bag. He placed the two
envelopes back inside the plastic bag together with the paper wrapping
and threw it on the other side of the concrete wall. The money, he
placed under the upholstery of the front seat. (Vol. III, p. 51,
t.s.n.) He continued plying his route. (Vol. III, p. 52, t.s.n.)

“At around 5:30 A. M. of September 5, 1970, Arandia returned the
Cony to the garage and went to Tinambacan, returning to Naga about 6:30
p.m. of the same day. (Vol. III, p. 72, t.s.n.) Arriving in his house
that evening, he was told by his wife that the appellant went to their
house demanding the P5.00 Arandia allegedly owed appellant. Short­ly
after Arandia finished eating his meal that eve­ning, Graciano Badilla
arrived and informed him that the Cony was out of order and was at the
Flying A Gasoline station, Arandia repaired the Cony and he and Graciano
Badilla went together in the vehicle to the centre. (Vol. p. 75,
t.s.n.) On reaching near the Alex Theatre, Arandia alighted and went to
the police precinct because Badilla told him that the police were
looking for him. He was investigated by Pat. Oliva regarding the
alleged missing money. There was no mention as to who owned the money.
After the investigation, Arandia went home. (Vol. III, p. 74, t.s.n.)

“About noon of September 6, 1970, Arandia brought the Cony to the
garage after plying his trade (Vol. III, p. 75, t.s.n.) from 6:00
o’clock A.M. that day. While he was in the garage, the appellant
arrived perspiring and Arandia asked him immediately what was that P5.00
he was de­manding from his wife. Appellant told him that was only an
alibi because he had important matters to talk with Arandia. The
appellant then invited Arandia to the Cony (Vol. III, p. 76, t.s.n.)
where they seated themselves facing each other. The appellant told
Arandia, ‘Joe, I have here a letter, please read it carefully’. Arandia
took the letter from appellant (Vol. III, p. 77, t.s.n.) read it; after
which, appellant took it back. (Vol. III, p. 78, t.s.n.) The letter
was inside an envelope, already opened and addressed to Jose Tukang,
care of Cerilo de Leon (appellant). Jose Tukang is Jose Arandia
himself; that is his alias, his “bansag”. (Vol. III, p. 79, t.s.n.) The
letter as recollected by Arandia on the witness stand was as follows:

‘Dear Tukang, there was money purposely left in your car which you
accidentally found. That money belongs to the syndicate. So that
within twenty-four hours you deliver the money. Tonight you should
enter the Bichara Theater in the Balcony. And sit yourself on the seat
where there are nobody sitting beside you. After leaving the money you
leave the place after five minutes because there will be two persons to
take it. If the money is no longer in your possession or that you had
given it to somebody it is your worry you will be dead at 12:00 Mafia’
(Vol. III, p. 80, t.s.n. Brasal).’

Arandia told the appellant that he had not found the money. But the
appellant answered ‘that is your problem already’. Then the appellant
told Arandia to take him home which Arandia did. Arandia took him to
the Bello Building and brought the Cony back to the garage. This
conversation inside the Cony lasted for sometime. According to Zenaida
Badilla, sister-in-law of the appellant and wife of Graciano Badilla,
they talked that time inside the Cony for more or less two hours. (Vol.
III, pp. 409-410, t.s.n.) After having conducted the appellant to the
Bello Building, Arandia brought the Cony back to the garage. (Vol. II,
p. 81, t.s.n.) He was bothered about what the appellant had told him and
because of the letter shown to him. He was wondering what to do. He
decided to get the money from under the driver’s seat of the Cony, took
three P20.00 bills therefrom, and walked towards the centre (Vol. III,
p. 82, t.s.n.) to look for the appellant near the place where the latter
had alighted. He saw Remo near the corner of the BISALA. (Vol. III,
p. 83, t.s.n.) When the appellant was leaving the Bello Building,
Arandia approached him and stated ‘Ciloy, there is the money’. Arandia
also told him, the money was only P950.00 because he (Arandia) spent
part of it. (Vol. III, p. 84, t.s.n.). Appellant promised to take care
of the matter and told Arandia that it was necessary for the latter to
leave. Arandia told the appellant that he could not leave because he
had no money. (Vol. III, p. 85, t.s.n.) Thereupon, appellant gave
P250.00 for expenses, taken from the money Arandia had just given him.
Arandia was about to leave when the appellant inquired where the
wrappers of the money were, and Arandia stated he threw them over the
bridge. Appellant approved the action by saying ‘good’ (Vol. III, p.
86, t.s.n.) and left. Arandia proceeded to the supermarket (Vol. III,
p. 87, t.s.n.) to the meeting of the drivers. At the meeting, he was
confused and restless, troubled whether to leave or not to leave. (Vol.
III, p. 88, t.s.n.) Arandia went to the Magdalena Apartment at
Panganiban Street where his wife was then working and told her that he
was leaving. He went to Tinambac (Vol. III, p. 29, t.s.n.) and told his
brother that the latter should take care of his family because he would
be leaving, and he left for Manila.

“In the morning of September 10, 1970, the Naga City Police
Department received a report that the dead body of a child was found
along the irrigation ditch at Pacol within the vicinity of the residence
of Ex-Vice Governor Odiamar. (Vol. VI, p. 98, t.s.n.) Upon receipt of
this report, Police Major Rey, together with the City Health Officer,
Dr. Theo Santy, some Fiscals and some members of the Police Department
went to Pacol. The dead body was examined by Dr. Santy in the presence
of Fiscal Vargas, Fiscal Rodriguez, and members of the police
department. The body was brought to the morgue of the Camarines
Provincial Hospital for autopsy at about 8:30 to 9:30 A.M. of September
10, 1970. (Vol. VI, p. 99, t.s.n.) When the body of the dead child was
already in the morgue, Major Rey of the Detective Bureau directed one of
his men to get members of the Odiamar family, particularly Samuel and
his wife, for the purpose of letting them view the body of the dead
child and determine whe­ther it was the body of their missing son, Raul
Odiamar. Upon arriving at the morgue, Samuel Odiamar looked at the body
and kept on tapping it while crying aloud, saying ‘Raul, Raul, my son’.
He identified the shoes, the khaki pants worn by the dead boy and the
pieces of rubber bands. (Vol. VI, p. 100, t.s.n.) In the morgue of the
Camarines Sur Provincial Hospital, the body of Raul Odiamar was examined
and autopsied by Dr. Theo Jame Santy, City Health Officer of Naga and
Deputy NBI Medico-Legal Officer, Bicol Re­gion District Office, and Dr.
Juan Dialago, Medico-Legal Officer for the province of Camarines Sur. A
necropsy report was made by them (Exh. S, p. 21, rec.) and according to
the postmortem findings, the body was 48.5 inches high.

‘Cadaver in the advanced stage of decomposition.

‘Hair all ruptured.

‘Hair already peeled off.

‘Traces of blood from the left ear.

‘Purplish discoloration of the face, body and extremities.

‘Abrasions, geographic, in different parts of the body probably resulting from bites of marine scavengers and other insects.

‘WOUND; incised, gaping, 5.0 x 6.0 inches, knee, right, cutting the tendon of the flaxer muscles of the right leg.

‘Sutured fracture, square-temporal bone, left extending to the occipital bone.

‘Tearing of the menenges just beneath the left square-temporal bone.

‘Cerebral hemorrhages, subdural, traumatic, temporal, left.

‘CAUSE OF DEATH:

‘Sutural fracture, square-temporal bone, left, with centrecoup.

‘Injury of the right square-temporal bone; Cere­bral hemorrhage.

‘Subdural, traumatic, temporal, left. ‘

“Now let us go back to Jose Arandia. When Jose Arandia left Naga
on September 6, 1970 (Vol. III, p. 389, t.s.n.) he went to Cavite City
via Camarines Norte and Pasay City. (Vol. III, pp. 248-250, t.s.n.) By
September 11, 1970, he was already in Cavite. (Vol. III, p. 249,
t.s.n.) While in Cavite City, Jose Arandia was fetched by Naga City
Police Detectives Blando and Tuazon and brought to Naga City on
September 25, 1970 where he was investigated. (Vol. III, pp. 6,
252-253, t.s.n.) He executed an affidavit (Exh. V) implicating the
ap­pellant. The contents of said affidavit were reite­rated by him on
the witness stand. (Vol. II, pp. 2-­90, Vol. III, pp. 1-16, t.s.n.)

“On October 6, 1970, Amparo Ibasco, wife of Jose Arandia, upon
arrival from Cavite, went to the Police Department, Naga City, to visit
Arandia, (Vol. III, p. 461) From there, she proceeded to the Office of
the Chief of Police of Pama, and turned over to him in the presence of
Major Rey, the ‘left over money’ (meaning what was left of what Arandia
gave her) amounting to P80.00 consisting of four 20 peso bills. (Vol.
III, pp. 461-464, t.s.n.) Chief of Police Pama gave her a receipt (Exh.
P) to show that they received the sum of P80.00 in four 20 peso bills
with their corresponding serial numbers stated on the receipt. (Ibid;
Exhs. F, F-1, F-2 and F-3) The serial numbers of these four twenty peso
bills turned over to Chief Pama tallied with four of the serial numbers
listed by Samuel Odiamar. (Exh. E)” (Brief, pp. 2-25.)

The appellant attributes only one error to the trial court, to wit:
“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS HIS GUILT
WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, IN DISREGARD OF
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT.” (Brief, p. 27) and
discusses this argument in just four pages.

The burden of the appellant’s arguments is to attack the credibility of state witness Jose Arandia and Edmundo Dualan.

The appellant claims that Arandia was an accomplice hence his testimony
comes from a polluted source and should not be believed. He also avers
that Arandia’s testimony is “much too eloquent, so much so that either
he was well rehearsed or just exceptionally brilliant.”

True it is that Arandia’s testimony comes from a polluted source. But
it does not follow that it is not admissible and competent. (People vs.
Aquino, L-27184, May 21, 1974, 57 SCRA 43.) What has to be done is
scrutinize it carefully. This the trial court did for it said:

“We have carefully scrutinized the testimony of Jose Arandia,
without forgetting for a moment that Arandia was one of the accused in
this case, but was discharged in order to be used as prosecu­tion
witness. We have therefore exercised the utmost care and caution in
considering his tes­timony. We have carefully watched his demeanor, his
behavior, the manner he testified in Court, we have watched his eyes –
the windows of his soul; we have intently listened to any change and
variation in his voice, and on the whole, although he committed certain
contradictions in his tes­timony, we found his testimony sufficiently
reasonable.” (Expediente, p. 1150.)

It should also be stated that Arandia’s testimony is partly corroborated
by that of Edmundo Dualan who testified on what happened when the
appellant brought Raul Odiamar to the coconut plantation of Felix
Gutierrez, appellant’s uncle, in Camuning.

The appellant’s claim that Arandia’s testimony is “much too eloquent” is
not supported by the record. Arandia was able to answer the questions
posed to him because he was telling the truth.

The testimony of Edmundo Dualan is questioned on the sole ground that he
did not identify the boy who was with the appellant as Raul Odiamar so
that Raul’s disappearance and eventual death cannot be laid to the door
of the appellant. This posture has no basis.

The appellant claims that the boy he brought to the Gutierrez’ coconut
plantation was his nephew, Reynaldo de Leon. But on September 1, 1971,
when Edmundo Dualan was recalled to the witness stand and Reynaldo de
Leon was shown to him, he replied that Reynaldo was not the boy who was
with the appellant. This is what the transcript shows:

“FISCAL VARGAS:

During the testimony of Cerilo de Leon, he said and he admitted that
he was at Camuning, Calabanga, Camarines Sur on September 2, 1970 with a
boy; but, that boy, according to him is Reynaldo de Leon. Reynaldo de
Leon is now here in Court, and I would like you to see him. We will
request now, at this stage, that Reynaldo de Leon should come forward.

(NOTE: At this stage, Reynaldo de Leon was requested to stand up)

Q – Will you tell us if this boy who stands up in the courtroom by
the name of Reynaldo de Leon, will you tell us if that is the same boy
whom you retrieved from the pit in the afternoon of September 2, 1970 at
Camuning, Calabanga, Camarines Sur?

A – That is not the one because that is very small.

(Vol. XIII – Defense, pp. 2483-2484.)

On the positive side, Dualan identified the boy who was with the
appellant as Raul by (a) describing his physical appearance and his
attire; and (b) his resemblance to Raul’s picture which was published in
the Bicol Mail. (TSN, Vol. II-Prosecution, pp. 141-149.)

The bottom line in this appeal is who to believe. Should the
inculpatory and incriminatory evidence given by Jose Arandia and Edmundo
Dualan prevail over the denial of the appellant that he had nothing to
do with the asportation and death of Raul Odiamar? The trial court
concluded that Arandia and Dualan were more credible and We have no
reason to disturb its conclusion for it was in a position to ascertain
which of the witnesses were more credible. This policy of appellate
courts is axiomatic and is based on sound considerations.

The trial court correctly sentenced the appellant to suffer death but We
cannot affirm the penalty because the necessary votes cannot be
obtained.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is modified in respect of the
penalty and indemnity in that the appellant shall suffer reclusion perpetua
and indemnify the heirs of Raul Odiamar in the amount of Thirty
Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos. The rest of the judgment is affirmed.
Costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Acting C.J., Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin and Relova, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., votes for the imposition of two death penalties. The accused is guilty of two separate and distinct capital offenses: kidnapping and murder.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., no part.

Fernando, C.J. and Teehankee, J., on leave (abroad).