THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VIRGILIO CABRAL Y CONSTANTINO AND JOSUE JAULA Y ALEJANDRINO, DEFENDANTS. JOSUE JAULA Y ALEJANDRINO, DEFENDANT AND APPE…

Virgilio Cabral y Constantino and Josue Jaula y Alejandrino were
charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with complex crime of
kidnapping with robbery, under the provisions of article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 18 and 1084, in
connection with articles 293 and 294 of the Revised Penal Code, in an
information subscribed by the Assistant Fiscal of Manila. The
information reads:

The undersigned accuses Virgilio Cabral y
Constantino and Josue Jaula y Alejandrino of the crime of kidnapping
with robbery, committed as follows:

That on or about the 28th
day of July, 1957, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, being private individuals, conspiring and confederating
together and mutually helping each other, with intent of gain, and
taking advantage of their superior strength, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously kidnapped, detained and carried away by means of a jeepney,
a motor vehicle, one Ligaya Mansilungan and her son of three and a half
years of age at the point of a knife, threatening her and her child
with death and other bodily harm, should she resist or cry out for
help, taking them to Dagupan Street, in said City, and then to Marulas,
Polo, Bulacan, and thereafter to Baliuag, Bulacan, and finally to
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, and then and there, by means of force and
intimidation, with intent of gain and against her will, grabbed, took,
stole and carried away from her one “Gruen” wrist watch valued at
P100,00 some articles of clothing worth P154.00, and cash money
amounting to P7.00, all belonging to the said Ligaya Mansilungan, to
her damage and prejudice in the total sum of P261.00, Philippine
currency.

Contrary to law. (crim. case No. 40855.) After trial, the Court
rendered judgment holding that the crime committed by the defendants
was not the complex crime of kidnapping with robbery because the latter
was not a necessary means to commit the former offense; that the
defendants could not be convicted of the crime of robbery as a separate
offense from that of kidnapping; that the crime committed by the
defendants was kidnapping for the purpose of extorting ransom from the
victims, under the provisions of the last paragraph of article 267 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 18 and 1084,
which purpose was not alleged in the information; and that the
defendants are guilty of the crime of kidnapping, or serious illegal
detention of a female, let alone a less than three year old child,
under the provisions of clauses 3 and 4 of the same article and Code,
as amended. The dispositive part of the judgment provides:

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds and so
holds that the accused are guilty of the crime of kidnapping or serious
illegal detention, the victim of the crime being a female, even
disregarding the fact that the complainant’s 3 year old son was also
taken. Strictly, the penalty prescribed by Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, should be imposed in its maximum period in view
of the aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle which has not
been offset by any mitigating circumstance. Nevertheless, because the
victim was released by the accused, the imposition of the maximum
penalty would be too severe. Consequently, the accused Virgilio Cabral
and Josue Jaula are each sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the complainant in the sum of P171, the Gruen watch having been recovered, and to pay the costs.

Both defendants appealed to this Court. On 16 October 1958 Virgilio
Cabral y Constantino filed a motion with drawing his appeal. On 27
October 1958 this Court granted the motion. Josue Jaula y Alejandrino
is the only appellant.

At about 9:00 o’clock in the morning of 28 July 1957 (Sunday),
Ligaya Mansilungan and her son less than three years old boarded a jeep
for public conveyance on No. 410 Azcarraga street, her place of
residence, opposite the LTB and BTCo. bus station, to go to Tabora
street, Manila. The driver of the jeep was Josue Jaula y Alejandrino,
the appellant, and the passengers in the jeep when she and her son
boarded it were Virgilio Cabral y Constantino and two unidentified
persons. Before reaching the intersection of Azcarraga and Tabora
streets, she told the appellant to stop the jeep so that she could
alight but he did not stop it. After crossing Tabora street and at a
point close to the Tutuban railroad station she again asked him to
stop, but instead the appellant turned to Dagupan street. The two
unidentified passengers jumped off from the jeep when it turned to
Dagupan street. There Cabral threatened her with a knife. She asked him
what he wanted from her. He warned her not to make an outcry. The
appellant drove the jeep northward. Upon reaching Marulas, Bulacan, the
appellant ordered the victims to move to the front seat between him and
Cabral. After they had transferred to the front seat, they proceeded to
Baliuag. On the way, they stopped at a gasoline station to refuel.
While at the gasoline station Cabral continued aiming his knife at the
right side of her body near the armpit. After refuelling, they resumed
the trip and arrived at Baliuag at about 12:00 o’clock noon. They
stopped in small barrio past Baliuag where Cabral and the appellant
took turns in taking lunch in a store far from where they had parked
the jeep. While the appellant stood guard he pointed his knife at her
to prevent her from making an outcry. After Cabral and the appellant
had finished their lunch, they proceeded to Cabanatuan City where they
arrived at about 3:30 o’clock in the afternoon. In a small street
outside the City, she was told to alight from the jeep and was boxed by
Cabral and the appellant. They demanded money from her and threatened
to kill her if she refused. When she told them that she did not have
money, they continued boxing her. She begged them to allow her to go
home so that she could get the money. After promising to give them
P1,000 in cash demanded of her the next day at 10:00 o’clock in the
morning at the Chinese cemetery in Manila she and her son were allowed
to leave but they divested her of a Gruen watch worth P100, merchandise
or goods valued at P154 and P7 in cash. After the two had left, she and
her son ran and ran until she saw a wagon which she thought was bound
for Manila. She related her story to the driver and asked him to give
her and her son a ride. The latter allowed them to ride in the wagon up
to San Vicente, Polo, Bulacan. From there they took a taxi to Manila.
Mother and son arrived home at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening. Upon
arrival at home, she learned from her husband Nestor Villarama that
Rodolfo Villarica, a housemate, had reported her to the police
authorities as missing. At about 12:00 o’clock midnight thecouple
proceeded to the police headquarters at Isaac Peral, Manila, to report
on the incident. After hearing her story, the police authorities
advised her to comply with the instructions of her kidnappers but to
give them only one genuine P100 bill and the balance of the amount
demanded of her in Japanese war notes.

Lieutenant Giron of the Manila Police Department assigned detective
Ajnado de la Paz to work on the case. As agreed upon detective de la
Paz disguised himself as a caretaker or laborer at the mausoleum of
Vicente Gotamco in the Chinese cemetery and posted himself there
between 9:00 and 10:00 o’clock in the morning of 29 July 1957. At about
11:00 o’clock in the morning Cabral arrived at the Chinese cemetery and
asked the victim if she brought the money with her to which question
she answered in the affirmative. Cabral asked her if she had any
companion and she answered that she had none. He remarked “It is good
you have no companion.” Ligaya handed to Cabral the money and left to
rejoin detective de la Paz. After Ligaya had rejoined detective de la
Paz, the former saw Cabral along Rizal Avenue Extension and she pointed
him to the police officer. The latter apprehended him and found in his
possession the money given to him by Ligaya marked Exhibits A and A-1
to A-10. Asked why he had the money in his possession, he did not
answer. Detective de la Paz brought him in his jeep to the police
station.

At the police station, lieutenant Giron ordered patrolman Abundio
Cate to conduct the investigation of Cabral. Patrolman Cate conducted
the investigation in the form of question and answer (Exhibit B). At
the investigation Cabral admitted participation in the commission of
the crime and named “Choy” as his companion. According to him “Choy” is
driver of a jeep for public conveyance whom he used to meet at the
Caltex gasoline station in front of P. Gomez Elementary School at
Quezon Boulevard, Manila. After the investigation of Cabral, sergeant
Carlos, assistant chief of the General Investigation Section, Detective
Bureau, ordered a team composed of detective Edmundo Villanueva, Felipe
Arcilla and patrolman Abundio Cate to apprehend the persons sleeping in
the gasoline station mentioned by Cabral. The team proceeded to the
gasoline station and brought to the police station for investigation
seven persons whom they found there. The police officers lined them up
and Ligaya Mansilungan identified Josue Jaula y Alejandrino, the
appellant, as the companion of Cabral. Again Cabral was interrogated
and he identified “Choy” as Josue Jaula y Alejandrino, the appellant,
as his companion in the commission of the crime (Exhibit C).

At about 6:20 o’clock in the evening of 29 July 1957, Ligaya
Mansilungan was examined and treated by Dr. Heriberto Ocampo, a
resident physician, at the Philippine General Hospital, who found
“Contusion with hematoma, left arm, middle third, lateral; (and)
Contusion, right arm, middle lateral”, which, in his opinion, would
incapacitate her from her “customary labor or require medical
attendance for a period of two (2) to three (3) days, unless
complications set in or manifestations due to internal injuries which
are not apparent at the time of the examination appear later.” (Exhibit
D.) According to the same physician, the contusions could have been
caused by fist blows or by “a blow by means of a wood.”

Two weeks after the incident, Ligaya Mansilungan was able to recover
her Gruen watch (Exhibit E) from a woman who claimed to have bought it
from somebody. She met the woman near the compound of the Children’s
Maternity in Oroquieta street, Manila. She failed to recover any of the
merchandise or goods and P7 in cash forcibly taken from her.

The appellant denies ever knowing Virgilio Cabral y Constantino and
Ligaya Mansilungan before 29 July 1957 when he was investigated at the
police precinct in the evening of that day, much less kidnapping her,
and going to Baliuag, Bulacan and Cabanatuan City at any time. He
claims that “Choy” is not his nickname but that his Christian name is
“Josue.” According to him in the morning of 28 July 1957 he went to the
house of her employer, Mrs. Emiliana Torres. At about 8:00 o’clock in
the morning of the same day, he and Mrs. Torres brought the jeep
bearing plate No. 5727-Manila (1957) to a mechanic, whose name he does
not know, on Misericordia street, to have the starter repaired.
Afterwards, between 9:00 o’clock and 10:00 o’clock in the morning, he
and Mrs. Torres went to buy some spare parts from the Antipolo Auto
Supply on Antipolo street. From there they proceeded to another shop on
Dimasalang for further repairs by a mechanic known as Mang Ilo, where
they stayed up to 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon. He and Mrs. Torres
took their lunch in a store in front of Mang Ilo’s shop. After Mang Ilo
had finished repairing the jeep he brought home Mrs. Torres and drove
the jeep along its route or line, Quiapo to Pasay and vice versa,
until 7:00 o’clock in the evening. The next day, from morning to noon,
he again had the jeep repaired. From 1:00 o’clock noon to 12:00 o’clock
midnight of that day he drove the jeep along the same route or line.
His employer, Emiliana Torres, and Cirilo Salonga, referred to by the
appellant as Mang Ilo, corroborated him. Mrs. Torres testifies on
cross-examination that when she and the appellant went to procure some
spare parts consisting of electrical wire and head light from the
Antipolo Auto Supply on Antipolo street both of them signed a “vale”
for the items they received (Exhibit 1).

The appellant’s plea of innocence is disproved by the clear, direct
and positive identification made by the victim, Ligaya Mansilungan,
that he was with Virgilio Cabral y Constantino when she and her son
were brought to Cabanatuan City in a jeep driven by him and there
divested of her watch, merchandise or goods and money against her will
and released only after she had promised to give them P1,000. She
swears that she could not forget his face because he boxed her more
than his co-defendant. The appellant’s weak defense of alibi is not
enough to destroy the clear, direct and positive identification made of
him by the victim, who came to know him only when she was kidnapped by
him and his co-defendant and has no evil motive to falsely testify
against him and bring about his conviction and deprivation of life or
liberty.

The “vale” (Exhibit 1) allegedly issued to Mrs. Emiliana Torres, the
appellant’s employers, when she bought the spare parts for the jeep
allegedly on 28 July 1957 is written on an ordinary paper and not
issued on a printed form used by duly licensed stores engaged in the
business of selling spare parts. Such a receipt is easily fabricated
and cannot be relied upon as evidence. The date “7-28-57” appearing on
the right hand corner of the paper appears to have been tampered by the
super-imposition of the numeral “8” upon the numeral “7” to make it
appear that it was issued on the 28th of July 1957 and that the spare
parts therein listed were procured on such date. These observations
relative to Exhibit 1 render the appellant’s alibi insufficient to
overthrow his established identity.

The crime committed by the appellant and his co-defendant, as
alleged in the information and proven by the evidence for the
prosecution, is kidnapping or serious illegal detention of a female and
a minor, under the provisions of clauses 3 and 4, article 267, of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 18 and 1084, for
which the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. The trial
court found that the aggravating circumstances of motor vehicle,
without any mitigating circumstance, to offset it, attended the
commission of the crime. The penalty should, therefore, be imposed in
its maximum. However, the trial court imposed only the penalty of reclusion perpetua
because “the victim was released by the accused, (and) the imposition
of the maximum penalty would be too severe.” The proper penalty, which
is death, should have been imposed and if the trial court believes, as
it believes, that a strict enforcement of the provisions of the penal
code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, it
may, pursuant to the provisions of article 5 of the Revised Penal Code,
recommend to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, the
commutation of the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

The value of the merchandise or goods amounting to P154 and P7 in
cash taken from the victim which she failed to retrieve amounts to P161
only. Consequently, the appellant should be ordered to indemnify the
victim in the sum of P161 only and not P171.

As to the amount of indemnity the appellant is ordered to pay the
offended party the sum of P161. As to the penalty, for lack of
sufficient statutory number of votes, the death penalty provided for by
law cannot be imposed upon the appellant. For that reason the judgment
appealed from is affirmed, with costs against him.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.