PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LUIS TARUC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, CENON BUNGAY ALIAS CENON BUNGUE ALIAS RUFING, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Appeal taken by Cenon Bungay, alias Cenon Bungue alias Rufing, from the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga in Criminal Case
No. 2053 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
to indemnify the heirs of Fr. Teofilo Limlingan in the sum of six
thousand (P6,000.00) pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, due to the nature of the penalty imposed; and to pay the
proportionate costs of the proceedings.

The
information filed with the above-named court charged Bungay, Luis Taruc
alias Kas. Ipe, Jose Mutuc alias Fred and Gonzalo Labo alias De Lara
with the crime of murder committed as follows:

“That on or about the 10th day of July, 1946, in the municipality of
Apalit, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above named defendants, conspiring and
confederating with Felipe de la Cruz alias Martinez, Pedro Macapagal
alias Roque, Apolonio Pafigilinan alias Commander Tang-gol, Fortunato
Nocum alias Mike, Eladio Nocum alias Medina and Mariano Pangilinan
alias Alaska, who are now dead, and mutually aiding one another, at
night time purposely sought to better accomplish their common design
and with evident premeditation, use of superior strength, craft and aid
of armed men, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take away Father Teofilo Limlingan, then parish priest of Balucuc,
Apalit, Pampanga, from his convent under the pretext that a couple who
had just eloped desired to be urgently united in lawful wedlock, and
once the said Father Teofilo Limlingan was with the accused and their
companions and far from being made to solemnize a marriage ceremony,
the said accused, in the furtherance of their conspiracy and with the
deliberate intent to kill, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously brought
the said Father Teofilo Limlingan to an isolated place in Balucuc,
Apalit, Pampanga, and once there, said Father Teofilo Limlingan with
both hands tied was shot by the said accused with firearms inflicting
upon said Father Teofilo Limlingan gunshot wounds which caused his
death immediately thereafter.”

Upon motion
of the Assistant Provincial Fiscal, the court dismissed the case
against Luis Taruc and Gonzalo Labp, on the ground of lack of
sufficient evidence in the case of the former, and in that of the
latter because he had been killed previously in an encounter with the
military authorities. As defendant Jose Mutuc was still at large at the
time of the trial, the case proceeded only against Bungay who had
pleaded not guilty. After the court had rendered judgment ot conviction
against axsa Bungay appealed.

At about 10:00 or 11:00 o’clock in the evening of July 10, 1946,
appellant went to see Francisco Diaz, a resident of sitio Dungan,
Balucluc, Apalit, Pampanga, and a member of the HMB (Hukbong
Mapagpalaya ng Bayan) organization, from where both went to sitio
Caingin of the same barrio. There they joined a group composed of Pedro
Macapagal alias Roque, Miguel Simbulan, Felipe de la Cruz, Gonzalo Labo
and one alias Maning. Macapagal and Simbulan—who were apparently the
leaders of the group—told them that Father Tedtio Limlingan should be
kidnapped and killed because he had abused two women. All those
present, with the exception of Diaz and one Justo Ortiz, readily agreed
to the proposition. Angered by the objection of the latter two,
Simbulan threatened to liquidate them, thus silencing both. Simbulan
then led the group to the convent of the chapel of barrio Balucuc
(Apalit, Pampanga) to fetch Fr. Limlingan. Upon arriving thereat,
Simbulan, appellant and another member of the group, called for the
unsuspecting priest, telling him that there was a couple who eloped and
wanted to be married. When the convent door opened, the trio
immediately went upstairs and, after a while, Simbulan came down
carrying with him the priest’s two long robes (hibitos), which he
ordered Diaz and Ortiz to dispose of in Baliwag, Bulacan, so as not to
cast any suspicion on them for the liquidation of the priest. Shortly
thereafter, appellant and another member of the party, came down the
convent with Fr. Limlingan, whose hands were tied behind his body, and
they took him to a fishpond located in the same barrio where he was
shot by Jose Mutuc. Thereafter his body was dumped into the fishpond
and covered with water lilies.

Upon being informed of the disappearance of Fr. Limlingan, Lt. Belvis,
with some PC soldiers and the then municipal mayor of Apalit, Pampanga,
Dr. Emilio Pascual, went to said fishpond in search of the remains of
the priest, but they failed to find them because the fishpond was
filled with water. In view of this they went to see Marcos Reyes, the
owner of the fishpond and requested him that, should he find said
remains, to report the matter to the barrio lieutenant.

One
day in March 1947, while Marcos Reyes and his companions were emptying
the fishpond of its water, a boy who was with them reported having
found some bones. When Reyes and his companions went to the place
indicated by the finder they found the skeleton still intact, with the
belt and buckle around its waist and the rope still tying the hands
behind the body. The discovery was reported to the barrio lieutenant
who rushed to the place. Upon his arrival, one Jose Bondoc volunterred
to pick up the remains and placed them inside the box left by Mayor
Emilio Pascual in the possession of Reyes. The remains, as well as the
belt and buckle, were identified by Marcos Reyes and Felicidad L.
Yumul, a sister of Fr. Limlingan, as belonging to the priest.

First contention of appellant is that the prosecution evidence failed
to establish the corpus delicti. It would seem, however, that he simply
means that the body or cadaver of the deceased priest was not actually
found. It should be borne in mind that corpus delicti means the fact of
the crime; that a crime has actually been perpetrated, and does not
refer to the body of the murdered person nor the object robbed or
stolen from the owner. In the present case, that the crime charged was
actually committed was clearly established by the positive testimony of
not less than three witnesses present when the murder was committed. On
the other hand, the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of
Felicidad L. Yumul, a sister of the deceased priest, shows that the
skeleton found in the fishpond was that of the said priest. Thus she
testified that her brother was a tall person, and the skeletal remains
appear to be those of a tall person (Maglalang transcript, p. 3,
session of December 15, 1959). She also asserted that her brother, the
murdered priest, in his lifetime had three upper right gold molars
(Ibid, p. 4) and that he also wore a belt with a buckle with the
initials T. G. L., and this appears to be the buckle found with the
remains discovered in the fishpond.

Next contention of appellant is that the evidence of record is not
sufficient to convict him beyond reasonable doubt. We find no merit in
this contention because appellant’s guilty participation in the
kidnapping of Father Limlingan—which was perpetrated for the purpose of
murdering him—was fully established by the testimony of three
eye-witnesses, namely, Francisco Diaz, Justo Ortiz and Troadio Nocum,
the substance of which has been reproduced heretofore. We have
carefully examined the record in search of any fact or circumstance
sufficient to discredit their testimony, but we found none. While it is
true that both Diaz and Ortiz formed part of the party who kidnapped
Father Limlingan but were not charged in the information filed in the
lower court, this was evidently due to the fact that when Simbulan gave
the order to kidnap and liquidate the priest, they objected to the plan
and did nothing thereafter to help accomplish the crime. We believe,
therefore, that they told the truth when they revealed the guilty
participation of appellant Bungay in committing the offense charged.
Upon the other hand, the defense evidence has not established any ill
motive on their part sufficiently serious to induce them to falsely
testify against him in this case.

Lastly, it is
appellant’s claim that the lower court should have acquitted him on the
ground of double jeopardy, it appearing that he had previously been
convicted of rebellion coupled with multiple murder, arson and robbery.
This is also untenable.

An examination of the information
filed in the case for rebellion, with murder and arson (Exhibit 1,
folio of exhibits) shows that the murder subject of the present case is
not one of those included therein and for which appellant had been
sentenced to death.(Exhibit 2, folio of Exhibits). Besides, the
evidence here shows that the motive for the murder was that appellant
and his companions thought that Father Limlingan had abused some women
under his religious influence; so arrogating unto themselves a power
that they did not possess, they found him guilty thereof, without
trial, and carried out the execution of their judgment. There is no
question, therefore, that appellant is not entitled to invoke the
defense of double jeopardy.

Wherefore, the appealed decision being in accordance with law and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.