THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN ONG Y KHO, AND BIENVENIDO QUINTOS Y SUMALJAG (PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED AS AFFIRMED IN G.R. NO. L-34497), ACCUSED. BAL…

On the night of April
23, 1971, victim Henry Chua was last seen alive in the company of
his friend Benjamin Ong.  As Chua failed to return to his home, his family, alarmed by his mysterious disappearance,
sought the help of the National Bureau of Investigation, the Manila Police
Department, and the Philippine Constabulary to locate him. Knowing that
Benjamin Ong was the last person with Chua before the
disappearance of the latter, the NBI tried to contact
Ong.  Ong also disappeared, so the various police agencies began
a manhunt for the apprehension of Ong.

Benjamin Ong was apprehended on August 29, 1971, in Sitio Patanda, Barrio Balugo, Oas,
Albay.  Brought
to Ligao, Albay, Ong denied any knowledge of the disappearance of Chua.  When Ong was
transferred to Camp Vicente Lim in Laguna, he attempted to commit suicide.  On September 1, 1971, when Ong was
turned over to the NBI for investigation, he
unhesitatingly confessed his responsibility for the killing of Henry Chua.  Ong implicated Bienvenido Quintos as one of his
companions in the crime.  When Quintos was arrested, he also admitted his participation in
the crime, and pointed to Fernando Tan and Baldomero Ambrosio as their companions in the per­petration of the
crime, stating the details of its execution.

Based on the confessions
of Ong and Quintos, the NBI and the Manila Police Department were able to recover
the body of Henry Chua in a state of advanced decomposition.  The identity of the body of Chua was
confirmed by Siy Giap Chua,
brother of Henry.^[1] Both Benjamin Ong
and Bienvenido Quintos were
tried (CCC-VII-922- Rizal, for “Kidnapping with Murder”) and
convicted by the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, Seventh, Judicial District, (Judge Onofre A. Villaluz) in the
“Sentence”, dated October 11, 1971.^[2] As both Ong and Quintos were sentenced to death, the criminal case was
elevated on automatic review to this Court (G.R. No.
L­34497).  This Court in its decision dated Januuary 30, 1975,^[3] found the two accused Benjamin Ong y Kho and Bienvenido Quintos y Sumaljag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of murder, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and use of motor vehicle offset
by the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and one analogous to passion
or obsfuscation, thereby imposing the penalty of reclusion
perpetua on both of them.^[4]
Said decision became final and executory on February 19, 1975.^[5]

At the time Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido Quintos were tried and
convicted by the trial court, accused Baldomero Ambrosio and Fernando Tan, alias Oscar Tan, were
still at large.^[6]

After the arrest of accused Baldomero Ambrosio sometime in August of 1972,^[7]
an information was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal against him, to wit:

“The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Benjamin Ong y Kho, Bienvendio
Quintos y Sumaljag,
Fernando Tan alias ‘Oscar Tan’, and Baldomero Ambrosio alias ‘Val’ of the crime of Kidnapping with
Murder, committed as follows:

“That on or about April 23 to April 24, 1971, inclusive, in
the municipality of Parañaque, province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, being then private individuals, conspiring
and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and with treachery and known
premeditation and for the purpose of killing one Henry Chua and thereafter
extorting money from his family through the use of a ransom note, kidnapped and
carried away said Henry Chua, initially by means of friendly gestures and later
through the use of force, in an automobile, and later after having taken him to
an uninhabited place in Caloocan City, with the use
of force detained him (Henry Chua ) and killed him in the following manner, to
wit:  The accused after gagging and tying
up Henry Chua and repeatedly threatening him with death, assured him that if he
would write and sign a ransom note for the payment by his family of the sum of
$50,000.00 (US), he would not be killed and would be released upon re­ceipt of
the ransom money, but after said Henry Chua agreed and did execute such a
ransom note, he was again gagged and tied up by the accused, and there­after  stabbed in the abdominal region, several
times with an ice-pick, inflicting upon him (Henry Chua) mortal wounds on his
vital organs, which directly caused his death.

“All contrary to law with the following generic aggravating
circumstances:

(a)    Evident
premeditation;

(b)    Grave
abuse of confidence;

(c)    Nighttime;

(d)    Use
of a motor vehicle;

(e)    Use
of superior strength;

(f)     Cruelty.”^[8]

The accused Baldomero Ambrosio pleaded not guilty upon arraign­ment on August 26, 1972, was tried, and the
trial court rendered its decision dated October 17, 1973, with dispositive
portion, to wit:

“WHEREFORE, finding
the accused Baldomero Ambrosio,
Guilty, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping with Murder as
defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 267
thereto, as charged in the Information, the Court hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of Death; to indemnify the heirs of the offended party the
amount of P12,000.00; to pay moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00 and
another P10,000.00 as exemplary damages jointly and severally with Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido Quintos; and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

So Ordered.”^[9]

The evidence for the prosecution, essentially the same as
presented and reviewed by automatic appeal, by this Court in G.R. No. L-34497, establishes its version as
follows:

Dr. Ricardo Ibarrola, Medico-Legal
Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation stated that he conducted the
autopsy of the deceased Henry Chua, and prepared the necropsy report Exh. “M”. 
The body of the deceased at the time of the autopsy was already in a far advanced state of
decomposition.  The brains, lungs, and
other soft tissues of the body were already totally decomposed while some of
the internal organs, like the heart and the liver were already autolized.  Dr. Ibarrola located two stab wounds on the liver, caused by a
sharp pointed piercing implement, most probably an ice-pick.  He attributed death to these stab wounds,
although he gave the considered opinion that death could have been hastened by
asphyxiation as the probability existed that Henry Chua was buried alive.^[10]

The body of Henry Chua was identified by his brother, Siy Giap, who was present when
the body was exhumed from a shallow grave in Barrio Makatipo,
Caloocan City.  His identification of the body was based on
the clothes and shoes worn by the deceased, as well as the personal effects
found on it, including an expensive Piaget white gold watch, a lighter, a
wallet with driver’s license, Diner’s card and other personal papers.^[11]

Agents Enrique Lacanilao and Diego
Gutierrez of the National Bureau of Investigation investigated the accused
Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido
Quintos.  The
original and supplementary extrajudicial confessions of Ong
and Quintos^[12]
which led to the successful dis­covery of the place where Henry Chua was buried
and the subsequent exhumation of the body^[13] were identified by these agents.  These witnesses also revealed the recovery of
the rope with which Chua’s hands were tied and the flannel cloth with which he
was gagged when he was killed.^[14]
Both agents testified on the re-enactment of the crime.^[15]
In the course of investigation of accused Benjamin Ong
and Bienvenido Quintos, the
accused Baldomero Ambrosio
was im­plicated.  When accused Ambrosio was arrested in August of 1972, he was brought to
the NBI office by the Chief of Police of Batan, Aklan.  Ambrosio
voluntarily gave the extrajudicial statement Exhibit “S”.^[16]

Ceferino Castro of the Baliwag
Police Department narrated the discovery of Henry Chua’s Mustang car with Plate
No. 1602 which was abandoned near a gasoline station at barrio Tibag, Baliwag, Bulacan.  The
pictures of the car were identified.^[17]

Patrolman Marciano Roque of the Caloocan City Police Depart­ment,
narrated the alleged plan to kill Chua as initiated by Benjamin Ong.  Roque knew Ong for more than five
years as the Assistant Manager of the Acme Shoes Rubber and Plastic
Corporation, a company situated in Caloocan City, owned by Ong’s
brother-in-law Chua Pak.  During the
first week of April, 1971, Roque went to the Acme
office to get a pair of rubber sandals. 
Benjamin Ong invited Roque
for a ride in Ong’s car, where Ong
revealed his plan to kidnap a person who allegedly cheated Ong
in gambling games.  Roque
tried to discourage Ong from carrying out his
plan.  The latter insisted and asked Roque to assist him during the several meetings that
followed between Ong and Roque.  Roque claimed he
was taken by Ong to Barrio Matipo,
Caloocan City, and shown the place where Ong planned to bury the person he planned to kidnap and
kill.  In one of the meetings between Roque and Ong, the former saw a
man seated at the rear of Ong’s car and the latter
referred to that man as his godson who will help him in the execution of the
crime.  That man turned out to be the
accused Baldomero Ambrosio.  Ong tried to
persuade Roque to join the plan as the father of the
intended victim happens to be a very rich man and the ransom money they expected
to get would enable Roque to leave the police force
and retire.  Roque
tried to avoid Ong and urged the latter to forget the
matter.^[18]

Bienvenido Quintos who was previously accused and convicted of
the crime of murder,^[19]
implicated Baldomero Ambrosio
when the former testified in his defense during that trial of CCC-VII-922-Rizal
against Ong and Quintos.^[20]  Quintos stated that
he could recognize his co-accused, then at large, Fernando Tan and Baldomero Ambrosio.  On April
23, 1971, Quintos and Tan met Ong and Ambrosio at the Barrio
Fiesta restaurant in Caloocan
City.  At about 9:00
p.m. they went to the Brown Derby restaurant at Quezon
Bou­levard Extension, riding in the Chevrolet car of Ong.  They proceeded afterwards to Roxas Boulevard where Ong ordered his driver Ambrosio
to stop at the Amihan Night Club.  While Ambrosio and Quintos stayed in the car, Ong
and Tan went inside the night club.  Tan
returned to the car and invited Quintos to go to the
nearby Wigwam Night Club.  After a while,
Tan and Quintos returned.  Tan sat beside the driver Ambrosio
while Quintos sat at the rear seat.  They followed another car — a Mustang — from
Dewey Boulevard to City Hall, then to Quiapo, España and Quezon Boulevard
Extension, Quezon City.  They passed Sto.
Domingo Church, made a U-turn, and turned right to Talayan Village.  Quintos saw the car
they were following stop in a dark place, and Ambrosio
alighted from their Chevrolet car.  Tan
pulled a gun as he went to the other parked car — the Mustang.  Quintos followed the
two and he saw Tan approach and point a gun at a man while Ambrosio
pulled that man out of the Mustang.  That
man was the victim, Henry Chua.  Tan and Ambrosio forced Chua to the rear seat of the Chevrolet car,
then compelled him to lie down on the floor.  Ambrosio took a
rope and tied the feet and hands of the victim, while Tan took a flannel cloth
and gagged that man.  They took the route
going to San Francisco del Monte Avenue.  In the meantime, Ong
rode in the Mustang car and followed them. 
They all went to Novaliches road.  At a narrow street along the way both cars
stopped.  Tan and Ambrosio
took the victim from the car as Ong arrived.  That man was made to walk and then made to
lie down face up.  Ong
gave Tan an ice-pick and ordered “patayin na iyan“ (kill him already), who in turn gave
the ice-pick to Ambrosio.  For his part, Ambrosio
gave the ice-pick to Quintos.  However, Quintos
returned it to Tan, who said “Hindi ka pa pala puwede“
(You are not capable yet).  Whereupon, Tan told Ambrosio to focus a
flashlight on the center of the front side of the body of Henry Chua.  Tan stabbed Chua twice on the chest.  While Tan lighted their way, Ambrosio carried the upper portion of the body, while Quintos carrying the lower portion.  When Quintos got
tired, Tan gave him the flashlight while Tan and Ambrosio
carried the body to a hole.  The hole was
covered by Ambrosio. 
Ong then stepped re­peatedly over the covered
hole to compress the earth.  They re­turned
to the car.  Ong
drove the Mustang car together with Tan. 
Quintos and Ambrosio
rode in the Chevrolet car, driven by the latter.  They followed the Mustang to the
highway.  Later, it was parked and
abandoned near a gasoline station.  Then Ong and Tan joined Quintos and Ambrosio in the Chevrolet and they proceeded to Manila.^[21]

The version of the defense is as follows:

Accused Baldomero Ambrosio
stated that in 1971, he was a family driver of Roger Chen, and before that
employment, he worked for seven years at the Acme Shoes Rubber
Corporation.  Accused Benjamin Ong was the manager of the Acme Shoes Rubber Corporation
while the accused Tan was a supervisor in the same company.  Ambrosio alleged
that Tan was a man of bad reputation, involved in a killing incident and
kidnapping of a woman.^[22]

In the evening of April
23, 1971, Ong, with Tan and Quintos, picked
up Ambrosio from his place so that the latter could
drive for Ong. 
They went to a restaurant at Balintawak known
as Barrio Fiesta.  They then went to the Amihan Night Club at the Dewey Boulevard.  Ong, Quintos and Tan alighted
from the car while Ambrosio remained in the car and
he slept.  The trio woke up Ambrosio at about 1:00 a.m. Tan and Quintos
rode with Ambrosio where Ong
was riding.  They went towards España.  At the Araneta Avenue, the car where Ong
was riding stopped.  Tan ordered Ambrosio to stop in front of the car.  Tan and Quintos
went to the other car.  Tan introduced
himself as a policeman, then he opened the door of the
car and pulled the driver out.^[23]

The narration of Ambrosio as to how the
crime happened subs­tantially coincided in details to the manner it was
described by Quintos.^[24]
Ambrosio, however, claimed that he did not
participate voluntarily in the crime, but rather he was ordered by Tan as to
all the acts he did during the execution of the offense.

Accused Ambrosio admitted that at about 4:00 p.m. of April 24, 1971, he and his wife went to Arayat,
Pampanga.  They
stayed two days in Arayat, then
he proceeded to his brother’s place in Balin­tawak.  He then went to Aklan
up to the time he was arrested in August of 1972.^[25] He denied that Ong
pointed to him as a godson in the presence of Patrolman Roque.^[26] Ambrosio likewise
denied that even before April 23, 1971, he was already with Ong,
Quintos and Tan and that Ambrosio
already dug that hole in Novaliches where the body of
Chua was placed.^[27]

He also claimed that the
extrajudicial statement Exhibit “S” was signed by him because he was
maltreated.^[28]

The principal thrust of
the defense’s argument that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the
subject matter of this case (complex crime of kidnapping with murder) because
its juris­diction as a Circuit Criminal Court is limited to “x x x. (a) crimes committed by
public officers, crimes against persons and crimes against property
as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code, whether simple or
complex with other crimes,” and kidnapping is not one of the crimes that
may be tried and decided by that court, becomes of no moment when this Court in
G.R. No. 34497 ruled that Ong and Quintos were guilty of murder and not kidnapping with
murder.^[29] The co-accused of Ambrosio
were, therefore, tried and convicted of the crime of murder, a crime
against persons, cer­tainly within the jurisdiction of the circuit criminal
court that rendered judgment in this case.

The only issue in this case, therefore, is whether or not the
accused Ambrosio voluntarily participated in the
commission of the crime.  That the crime
of murder was committed has already been established by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt when this Court convicted Ong and Quintos in G.R. No. L-34497.  This
Court already ruled that “Conspiracy, connivance and unity of purpose and
intention among the accused were present throughout in the execution of this
crime.  The four participated in the
planning and execution of the crime and were at the scene in all its
stages.  They cannot escape the
consequences of any of their acts even if they deviated in some detail from
what they originally thought of. 
Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every
detail of the execution.  Thus, treachery
should be considered against all persons participating or cooperating in the
perpetration of the crime.”^[30]

The defense of the accused Ambrosio
that he was an unwilling participant in the killing of Henry Chua because of
threats made by Fernando Tan, to Our mind, cannot be
given credence.  Quintos, as shown in his testimony,
(Exh. “1”) clearly narrated how Ambrosio participated in the crime, manifesting voluntariness in his acts throughout the execution of the
same.  Ambrosio
was the one who pulled Chua from the Mustang car.  Ambrosio provided
the rope and tied the hands and feet of Chua. 
He was the one who drove the car with the victim inside to that place in
Novaliches where they buried Chua after killing
him.  He focused the flashlight on the
chest of the victim when Tan stabbed him. 
He helped carry the victim to the hole where he was buried, and Ambrosio covered the hole with earth using a spade.  Exhibit “1” for the defense is
certainly binding on it.

Ambrosio admitted that he went to
different places and to Aklan after the crime was
committed, and he was arrested only in August of 1972, nearly two years after
the crime was committed.  He never
revealed to the authorities the crime that he alleged to be an unwilling
participant of in that long span of time. 
He also admitted that there were at least two times when he could have
escaped from the group of Ong when the crime was
being executed and yet Ambrosio never did so.  During the execution of the felony, Ambrosio never by act or deed protested to the group
regarding its cruel commission.  We also
cannot fully understand why Ambrosio had to join the
group of Tan, if according to Ambrosio, himself, Tan
was a man of bad reputation.^[31]
Tan has never been appre­hended.  The defense of Ambrosio that he was
threatened by Tan to participate in the crime stands uncorroborated, as
contradicted by the testimony of Quintos.  The inevitable conclusion is that Ambrosio voluntarily participated in the commission of the
crime.

The trial court did not err in discrediting Ambrosio’s
claim that he was maltreated by the agents of the law to extract his
extrajudicial statement.  (Exhs. “S”).  He never did protest the alleged maltreatment
before the Regional Director Nestor Gonzales before whom he signed the
statement.  Although he had all the
chances to do so, he never filed charges against the persons who allegedly
maltreated him.^[32]
The confession of the accused Exhibits “S” is, therefore, admissible
against him.

As to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in the
commission of the crime, this Court already ruled in G.R.
No. L-34497, that treachery (alevosia)
qualified the killing of Chua to murder. 
Chua’s hands were tied and his mouth was gagged when he was stabbed
twice with an ice-pick.  Chua was
defenseless and helpless enabling the accused to commit the crime without risk
to them.  The aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery.  The aggravating circumstance of nighttime (nocturnidad)
cannot be absorbed in treachery because in this crime treachery arose from the defenseless position of
Chua when he was killed, while night­time was purposely sought by the accused
to facilitate immunity in the commission of the crime.  The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited
place (despoblado) is also present, due to the deliberate selection of an isolated
place (Barrio Makatipo, Novaliches,
Caloocan City)
for killing and burying the victim. 
Abuse of confidence can­not be considered as an aggravating circumstance
present in the crime, because it does not appear that the victim Chua ever
reposed confidence on Ong.  Chua knew that he was far stronger in money
and influence than Ong.  The fact that Henry Chua invited Ong night clubbing on that fatal evening and accommodated
the latter in his car did not show that Chua had confidence in Ong.

The aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle in the
commission of the crime can be considered present because the Biscayne car of Ong was used to trail the victim’s car and to facilitate
the commission of the crime and the escape of the accused.

Cruelty (ensañamiento) cannot be
considered because there is no evidence that the victim Chua was buried while
still alive to make him suffer.

Evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime
because the accused meditated, planned, and tenaciously persisted in the
accomplishment of the crime.

Accused Ong was given the mitigating
circumstances of plea of guilty and one analogous to passion and obfuscation^[33]
because Chua previously threatened Ong for
non-payment of debt arising from gambling, causing Ong
humiliation and shame.^[34]

Taking into consideration the above aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, Ong was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. 
Accused Quintos, although no mitigating
circumstance could be appreciated in his favor, was also sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.^[35]
Ong and Quintos were also
sentenced “jointly and severally to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Henry Chua in the amount of P12,000.00; to pay moral damages in the amount of
P50,000.00; and another P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay their
proportionate share of the costs. ^[36]

The present case (G.R.
No. L-37908) already pending review in this Court when G.R. No. L-34497 was decided on January 30,
1975, should have been decided together with the latter case, as they arose
from the same crime, involving the same accused.

It is Our considered view that the
accused Baldomero Ambrosio
stands in this case on a similarly situated position as convicted accused Bienvenido Quintos in G.R. No. L-34497, and should, therefore be
sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and not
death.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated October
17, 1973, is hereby MODIFIED, finding the accused Baldomero
Ambrosio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify, jointly and severally with his co-accused, the heirs of the
deceased Henry Chua in the amount of P12,000.00; to
pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00; and another P50,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee,
Barredo, Makasiar,
Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., see
concurrence.

^[1]
pp. 393-395, Original Record, CCC-VII-922-Rizal.

^[2] pp.
19-48, Id.

^[3]
pp. 275-358, rollo,
G.R. No. L-34497.

^[4]
pp. 328-329, Id.

^[5]
p. 364, Id.

^[6]
p. 20, Original Record, CCC-VII-922-Rizal.

^[7]
p. 59, Id.

^[8]
p. 1, Original Record, CCC-VII-922-Rizal.

^[9]
pp. 472-473, Original Record, CCC-VII-922-Rizal.

^[10]
pp. 4-22, t.s.n., Aug. 7, 1973.

^[11]
Exhs.
“I”, “J”, “K”, “C”, “H”,
“D”, “E”, “F” and “G”; pp. 6-17, 47-60,
t.s.n., August 16, 1973.

^[12]
Exhs.
“N”, “R”, “O” and
“Q”.

^[13]
Exhs.
“N-10”, “N-10-a”, “N-11.

^[14]
Exhs.
“L-1” and “L-2”.

^[15]
Exhs.
“P”, “P-1” to “P-19”.

^[16]
pp. 24-99, t.s.n., Aug. 7, 1973; pp. 18-47, t.s.n., Aug. 16, 1973; pp. 5-15, t.s.n.,
Sept. 14, 1973.

^[17]
pp. 61-66, t.s.n., August 16, 1973.

^[18]
pp. 2-60, t.s.n., August 28, 1973; pp. 2-9, t.s.n., Sept. 3, 1973.

^[19]
G.R. No.
L-34497.

^[20]
Exhibit “1”.

^[21]
Exh.
“1”, pp. 2-54, t.s.n., September 22, 1971.

^[22]
pp. 16-20, t.s.n., Sept. 14, 1973.

^[23]
pp. 21-28, t.s.n., Sept. 14, 1973.

^[24]
pp. 20-40, t.s.n., Sept. 14, 1973.

^[25]
pp. 41-43, t.s.n., Sept. 14, 1973.

^[26]
pp. 44-45, t.s.n., Sept. 14, 1973.

^[27]
p. 46, t.s.n., Sept. 14, 1973.

^[28]
pp. 48-80, t.s.n, Sept. 14, 1973.

^[29]
pp. 328-329, rollo, G.R. No. L-34497.

^[30]
p. 318, rollo, G.R. No. L-34497.

^[31]
pp. 16-20, t.s.n., Sept. 14, 1973.

^[32]
pp. 59-64, t.s.n., Sept. 14, 1973.

^[33]
Art. 13, par. 10, Revised Penal Code.

^[34]
pp. 317-328, rollo, G.R. No. L-34497.

^[35]
p. 329, rollo, G.R. No. L-34497.

^[36]
Id.

Normal
150
Clean
Clean
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}