THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MATEO DEL CASTILLO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, JOSE ESTRADA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is a review, on appeal by
accused Jose Estrada, of Criminal Case No. 213-G of the Court of First
Instance of Quezon, wherein the death sentence was imposed upon the said
accused by the court a quo in its decision dated February 11,
1960, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“PREMISED on the foregoing considerations the Court hereby
finds the accused Jose Estrada GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
kidnapping for ransom as defined and punished by Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code, as ultimately amended by Republic Act No. 1084, with the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of
public office (he being then municipal councilor of Gumaca), without any mitigating circumstance to offset
it, and hereby sentences him to die by electrocution as provided by law, ordering his heirs after
his execution, to indemnify
Elvira Tañada Principe or her heirs in case of her death, in the amount of 1050,000.00, and to pay the
costs.”

For a prefatory
statement of the background facts of the case, the details of which shall be
set forth later as We review the evidence, the following antecedents need be stated.

In the afternoon of February
27, 1956, Mrs. Elvira Tañada de Principe, a young, prominent matron
of Gumaca, Quezon, a member of the
rich, well known Principe family, was kidnapped by a band of
Hukbalahaps, headed by one Commander Pepe Alcantara.  She was de­tained for 18 days in the Huk
lairs deep in the mountains of the Bondoc
Peninsula, and was released only
upon payment of a ransom of P50,000.00.

On Account of the kidnapping, three (3) cases, filed one after
another, were instituted by the Govern­ment against the known suspects.  We are presently con­cerned only with the
last of these cases, which has culminated
in this appeal.  But for a better understanding of this case, We have to make mention of them all in
passing.  And for this purpose, the statement made by the trial court in the decision appealed from will suffice.

“(a) The First Case. – Criminal Case No. 137-G

The first charge was a complaint initiated on March 17, 1956, by Lt. Lucas B. Apolonio of
the 38th PC Company stationed at Gumaca and lodged with the justice of the
peace court Gumaca which upon, elevation to this Court became Crim. Case No.
137-G for the complex crime of rebellion with kidnapping in which the
information was filed by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Severino I. Villafranca on
April 24, 1956.

“On June 4,
1956, Fiscal
Villafranca amended his first information to name Arcadio Talavera as Lt.
Alcantara in the assumption that Lt. Alcantara was Arcadio Talavera.

“Later on and after the Luis Taruc case was decided by the
Supreme Court to the effect that there was no such complex crime of rebellion
with kidnapping, Fiscal Villafranca moved the Court to permit him to amend his
in­formation and to charge the accused separately, one information for the
crime of kidnapping for ransom.

“On June 26, 1956, a second amended information in Criminal
Case No. 137-G was filed by Fiscal Villafranca charging all the accused headed
by Arcadio Talavera alias Lt. Alcantara with the simple crime of rebellion.

“On August 26, 1956,
a third information was filed by Fiscal Villafranca eliminating Arcadio
Talavera from the information but adding Lt. Alcantara as one of the accused. The crime charged was still for the crime of rebellion.

“The record shows that this third amended information was
provisionally dismissed by the Court on October 10, 1956, on the petition of
Fiscal Villafranca and Special Prosecutor Capilitan on the ground that the
evidence against the two accused Doroteo Edungan and Buenaventura Miel, who were
then the only accused placed in the custody of the law for rebellion, were not
sufficient to convict them of rebellion.

“The record further
shows that the entire case was provisionally dismissed on the ground that the
rest of the accused had not yet been arrested, subject to the proviso
that any time the case may be revived for rebellion against those that might be
arrested later.  This Case No. 137-G is
therefore a closed case, at least provi­sionally as a case for rebellion.

(b) The Second Case. – Criminal Case No. 164-G, for Kidnapping for Ransom.

“On June 26, 1956, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Villafranca
filed a separate information for the kidnapping for ransom of Elvira Tañada de Principe,
naming the thirty-three accused in Crim. Case No. 137-G as defendants.  This case was docketed as Criminal Case No.
164.

“The record shows that on August 17, 1956, this Court upon petition of Pro­vincial
Fiscal Jose O. Lardizabal dismissed the case against Arcadio Talavera as Lt.
Alcantara and Provincial Fiscal Lardizabal filed an amended information on August 16, 1956, against Lt.
Alcantara and the thirty-two persons named in the first information.  In other words, Ar­cadio Talavera alias Lt.
Alcantara was eliminated but Lt. Alcantara was conti­nued in his stead.

“The accused Antonio Companiero alias Nelson de Rosas was
discharged from this information to be utilized as witness for      the government in Crim. Case No. 213-G.

“The case against Buenaventura Miel was dismissed on March 19, 1957, for in sufficiency of
evidence.

“The case against Gonzalo Mallare alias Commander Rosy was
dismissed on December 5, 1957,
for insufficiency of evidence.

“On February 25, 1958,
the case against Doroteo Edungan was dismissed upon peti­tion of Special
Prosecutor Victor Santillan and Artemio Alejo and of Assistant Provincial
Fiscal Eufemio A. Caparros for insufficiency of evidence.

“On February 26, 1958,
the accused Quirino Ravela alias de Leon pleaded guilty as accessory after the
fact in the crime of kidnapping for ransom of Elvira Tañada and was sentenced
accordingly.

“On February 1, 1960
the accused Clodualdo Camacho pleaded guilty as accessory after the fact and
was sentenced accordingly.

“Isidro Alpay alias
Commander Bulaklak Domingo America alias Laguimay, Ireneo Capisonda
alias Erning alias Lope, Benjamin de Jesus @ Amin, Ben Ramirez @ Ben, Pedro
Martinez @ Pedro, Santiago Napoles @ Nomver, @ Jaime @ Jimmy @ Jimay, @ Gelacio
@ Elioso, @ Liwayway, @ Berna, @ Timoteo, @ Juan, @ De Guzman, @ Torres, @
Valencia, @ Bayas and @ Ladres have not yet been placed
in the custody of the law.  On February 27, 1958, the case against
those who are still at large was dismissed provisionally.

“The accused Alfredo Reyes @ Commander Fred, Emiliano Blasco @
Commander Emy, Rodrigo @
Commander Tony, Victoriano Dayunot @ Torio and Panfilo Rosales @ Fredo @ Banaag
are all reported dead.

“For all purposes therefore, Case No. 164-G may be considered a terminated
case.

(c) The Third Case.-
Crim. Case No. 213-G for
Kidnapping for Ransom.

“On October 10, 1956,
a third case was filed by a special prosecutor from the Department of Justice,
Antonio O. Capilitan, after the surrender of some of the Huks who participated
in the kidnapping of Elvira Tañada de Principe. 
In this third case, the special prose­cutor accused Mateo del Castillo,
Jose Estrada and Julio Ceribo and several others under assumed names or aliases
of kidnapping for ransom and this case was docketed as Crim. Case No. 213-G.  This is now the case under consideration of
the Court in which the accused Jose Estrada was the only accused tried by the
Court.

“The accused Jose Ceribo was dis­charged from this case to be
utilized as witness for the government.

“The accused Mateo del Castillo has been reported dead.

“The accused Romaguerra Doe @ Romaguerra was identified as
Francisco Rabi and Heling Doe @ Heling was identified as Angel Veran.  They both pleaded guilty upon their
arraignment on February 1, 1960,
as accessory and were sentenced accordingly.

The accused Pete Doe @ Pete and William Doe @ William were
identified as Francisco Lisay and Quintin Magdaong.  They also both pleaded guilty as accessory
and were sentenced accordingly.

“The accused Carding Doe @ Carding is reported dead.

“As to the other accused, Teddy Doe @ Teddy, Nato Doe @ Nato,
Mike Doe @ Mike, Inso Doe @ Inso, Essi Doe @ Essi, Kaloy Doe @ Kaloy, Loring
Doe @ Loring and John Doe, they are still at large and have not yet been placed
under arrest.

“During the trial of this case No. 213-G, the defensé of
Estrada asserted that the accused Lt. Alcantara was al­ready in the custody of
the Philippine Constabulary and was subpoenaed as witness for the defense but
not withstand­ing the efforts of the Court this accused has not been produced
by authorities.  He is still charged in Crim. Case No. 213-G but his case has not yet
been set for hearing.”

The foregoing statement of the genesis of Criminal Case No. 213-G
explains why the decision appealed from concerns only Jose Estrada (herein
appellant).

Accused Jose Estrada was
tried alone by the court below under the corresponding information, alleging as
follows:

“That on or about the 27th day of February, 1956, in the municipality of Gumaca,
Province of Quezon, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aforementioned Accused,
together with (1) LT. ALCANTARA, (2) ROMY DOE @ Comdr ROMEO, (3) JOSE MALUBAY @
Comdr PEPE, (4) GALICANO MANAOG @ Comdr BULAKLAK (6) DOMINADOR AMERICA @
LAGUIMAY, (7) ALFREDO REYES @ Comdr FRED, (8) EMILIANO BLASCO @ Comdr EMMY, (9)
RODRIGO DOE @ Comdr TONY, (10) CLODUALDO CAMACHO @ EFREN, 11) VICTORIANO DAYUNOT @ TORIO, (12) IRINEO CAPISONDA @ ERNING, (13) DOROTEO
EDUNGAN @ DOROT, (14) BUENAVENTURA MIEL @ TURA, (15) BENJAMIN DE JESUS @ AMIN,
(16) BEN RAMIREZ @ BEN, (17) PEDRO MARTINEZ PEDRO, (18) SANTIAGO NAPOLES @
NOMER, (19) PAMFILO.ROSALES @ FREDO @ BANAAG, (20) ANTONIO CAMPANIERO @
NELSON DE ROSAS, (21) @ JAIME @ JIMMY @
JIMAY, (22) @ GELACIO @ ELIASO, (23) @ LIWAYWAY, (24) @ BERNA, (25) @
TIMOTEO, (26) @ JUAN, (27) @ DE
GUZMAN, (28) @ MENDOZA, (29) @ DE LEON, (30) @ TORRES, already charged with
Kidnapping in Criminal Case No. 164-G, under the same facts herein charged,
conspiring and confederating and
mutually helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously through force, threats and intimidation, kidnap ELVIRA TAÑADA DE PRINCIPE and CARMEN NOCETO, take and
carry them away from their dwellings to an uninhabited far distant forest in the mountain of
Bondoc Peninsula for 18 days confinement under their custody and control for
the purpose of demanding ransom in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00) Philippine currency, which the said Accused did in fact receive on
the 16th day of March 1956 in consideration of which amount said kidnapped
persons were re­leased, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended
parties in the said  amount.

“That the following
aggravating circumstances are present in the commission of the offense:

(1)   
Superior
strength; (2) in band; (3) use of unlicensed firearms; (4) in an
uninhabited place; and (5) use of Army uniforms and other insignias for
disguise.”

Upon arraignment on November
27, 1956, accused Jose Estrada refused to make any plea to the
information against him; hence, the trial court entered for him a plea of
“not guilty”.  His petition for
bail had been denied; and since then,
Jose Estrada has remained in confinement.

Our own examination of the record revealed that the case of the
People was established thru the testimonies of 12 prosecution witnesses,
namely: Elvira Tañada Prin­cipe and Carmen Noceto, the kidnap victims; Reynaldo
Principe, Elvira’s husband; Marciano Principe, Reynaldo’s father; Petra Mañego,
Basilio Angulo, Beato Glinoga and Jesus Letargo who all had something to do
with the nego­tiations between the kidnappers and the family of the victims,
which led to their subsequent release of the kidnapped victims; Antonio
Campaniero and Julio Ceribo who were both discharged from the information to be
utilized as state witnesses; Gonzalo Mallare, as against whom the case was
dismissed for insufficiency of evi­dence; and Col. Francisco del. Castillo,
Provincial Com­mander of Quezon at the time the information in this case was
filed in court.  Stripped of unessential
de­tails, the testimonies of the principal witnesses may individually be
summarized as follows:

TESTIMONY OF ELVIRA TAÑADA DE PRINCIPE:

Elvira Tañada de Principe was inside her store on the ground
floor of the house of her father-in-law in Gumaca, Quezon, at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of February 27, 1956.  She was busy estimating her laundry
bills.  Three (3) men wearing uniforms
similar to those worn by soldiers in the army arrived and entered her store.  One of them first inquired for the price of a
pack of “Chelsea”
cigarettes, and then asked for one.  As
Elvira reached for the pack of cigarettes, the other two suddenly grabbed her
hands and pointed their pistols to her. 
They pulled her out of the store and dragged her towards the bodega of
her father-in-law, Marciano Principe, and then on to the railroad track going
to the direction of the elementary school of the town.  The two uniformed men were later substituted
by two others in civilian clothes who, after holding Elvira by the hand on each side,
continued running with her through the co­conut plantations toward the
mountains.  There were gun fires that
followed, but the men continued running, taking Elvira Tañada de Principe along
with them.  They told her not to be
afraid, as they were just making a “show”.  They stopped running, however, when the
firing ceased; and soon other persons came running towards them and joined
their group.  One of them gave Elvira a
pair of shoes and stockings.  She put
them on before they continued their way, deeper into the mountains.  The leader ordered two of his men to buy
bread for Elvira, but they were not able to buy any.  Instead, she was given candy.  Then they continued walking all through the
night, stopping only at midday of the
28th of February when they reached a sawmill site. 
From there, they continued walking again at dawn of the fol­lowing
day until they came upon a copra kiln; and there the men prepared food.  Thereafter, they continued hiking once again
until they reached the Huk lairs.  There
were five huts at the place, all without walls. 
Elvira Tañada de Principe and Carmen Noceto were
kept in the one located at the center for two weeks.

There were sixteen(16) men in the group that took Elvira and
Carmen to the mountains, including the three(3) who originally took Elvira out
of her store in Gumaca.  Elvira came to
know their names because they had nameplates on their breasts.  The leader who earlier asked for a pack of
“Chelsea” cigarettes at
her store – was Lt. Alcantara, while those who dragged her out of the store
were Gomez and Mendoza.  Not long after
their arrival at the place of the huts, the kidnappers divided into two
groups.  Lt. Alcantara soon left the
place with seven (7) men, leaving the eight (8) others to guard Elvira Tañada
de Principe and Carmen Noceto.  These men
left behind were Ladres, Bayas, Gomez, Torres, De Leon, Villazar, Delgado and
Mendoza.  Lt. Alcantara and Julio Ceribo
came back to the place every now and then, bringing food and letters from
Elvira’s husband.

After the lapse of about two weeks, Lt. Alcantara finally told
Elvira that she would be released.  He
showed her letters from her husband, her father and her brother.  And on March 15, they left the huts at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning, with Carmen
Noceto and others.  They moved to another
place where they waited for Lt. Alcantara’s other companions.  In due time, they arrived, and Elvira and
Carmen Noceto were then taken to another place which they reached after about
an hour’s walk.  There they met Angulo,
Letargo, Erea and Francia who had come, all the way from Gumaca and brought the
P50,000.00 ransom money.  Elvira counted
the money, then delivered the same to Lt. Alcantara.  Thereafter, Elvira and Carmen Noceto were
released.  They were not accom­panied by
anyone of the kidnappers.  Lt. Alcantara
merely instructed them to follow the course of a river until they could see a house, and there to find one
who could guide them to Barrio Magisian, Lopez, Quezon.  They fol­lowed these instructions and reached
the road in said barrio, where they were picked up by a station wagon which took them back to Gumaca at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of March 16, 1956.

TESTIMONY OF
CARMEN NOCETO:

In the afternoon of February
27, 1956, Carmen Noceto was at the house of her sister near the
elementary school in Gumaca.  She saw two
persons running on the railroad track, leading Elvira Tañada de Principe by the
hands.  Suddenly, a “soldier”,
also on the railroad track stopped and called her out of the house.  Pointing his gun at her, the
“soldier” pulled her by the hand and dragged her along, telling her
that she would just accom­pany Elvira Tañada de Principe.  She could not refuse; she was greatly
terrified.  Her father who was then
present was stunned; for the “soldier” also pointed his gun at
him.  She was taken, along with the group
of Elvira Tañada de Principe, to the far away mountains she had never reached
before.  They walked all night, then for
two days more, resting only when they took their meals.  They finally stopped walking, only when they
reached a place where there were five huts without walls.  She and Elvira Tañada de Principe were kept
in one of these huts together during the eighteen days that they were held in
captivity by their kidnappers.  They were
allowed to go home only after the arrival of the P50,000.00 ransom money which
was brought by Manoling Letargo, Basilio Angulo and two others whom she did not
know.  Before their release, they were
guarded by several men, among them.  De
Leon, Angel Veran Villazar, Antonio Campaniero
@ Nelson and Julio Ceribo @ July.

Carmen Noceto did not know Elvira Tañada de Principe before the kidnapping.  She came to know her only when they were kept
together in one hut in the mountains. 
They became intimate with one another later, and Elvira allowed
her to read the letters sent to her by
her husband while she and.  Elvira were
held captives.

TESTIMONY OF BEATO GLINOGA:

Beato Glinoga was asleep in his house in Barrio Villa Tañada, Gumaca, on the night of March 4, 1956, when he was awakened by
his barriomate, Leon Calvelo.  The former
was informed by the latter that some soldiers wanted to see him.  Glinoga obliged, and went with Calvelo to the
latter’s place which was bout half a kilometer away, to meet the soldiers
referred to by Calvelo.  He did meet them
at the place which was dark; so much so that altho he spoke with one of the
supposed “soldiers”, Glinoga was not able to recognize any of
them.  Neverthe­less, the person with whom
Glinoga spoke introduced himself as Lt. Alcantara, at the same time identifying
himself and his companions as the ones who had kidnapped Elvira Tañada de
Principe. Lt. Alcantara then asked Glinoga if he could deliver a letter to the Principes
in Gumaca, to which Glinoga consented. 
Lt. Alcantara warned him not to reveal that he had seen them to anybody.  He also instructed Glinoga to see accused Jose Estrada first before delivering
the letter, so that he (Estrada) could accompany him to the house of the
Principes, and then to the mountains in Villa Tañada where Lt. Alcantara would
meet them later, for according to the letter, Estrada knew what it is all
about.  Glinoga was warned further, that
should he fail to contact Estrada, he
should not tell anybody about
it, but should proceed directly to the house of the Principes
in Gumaca, and then meet him (Lt. Alcantara) later in the mountains.

Pursuant to such instructions, Glinoga left Villa Tañada early
the following morning and proceeded to the town of Gumaca,
to deliver Lt. Alcantara’s letter to the Principes.  He tried to locate Estrada when he reached
the town, but he was not able to find him; so, Glinoga went directly to the
house of Marciano Principe and de­livered the letter to the old man in the
presence of the other members of the family. 
Marciano Principe immediately prepared a letter in answer to Lt.
Alcantara’s note.  He then gave it to
Basilio Angulo who was at the house of the Principes at
the time, requesting Angulo to go with Glinoga back to Villa Tañada and see Lt.
Alcantara.  Angulo agreed.  He went with Glinoga to the mountains in
Villa Tañada.  They reached the Huk lairs
at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening
of that same day, and they were met by Lt. Alcantara after Glinoga had signalled
three times with his flashlight.  Basilio
Angulo then had a conference with the Huk leader.  Asked by one of Lt. Alcantara’s men where
accused Estrada was, Glinoga gave the information that he was not able to find
him in town.

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CAMPANIERO @ NELSON DE ROSAS:

Antonio Campaniero joined the Hukbalahap organization on August 25, 1952, under the Huk name @
Nelson.  He served under various Huk
Commanders in the field.  From 1955 up to
the time of his surrender on July 18,
1956, he was under the command of Huk Comdr. Teddy Corazon, head of
the Organizers Brigade (OB), operating near the mountains of Gumaca, Quezon.

Sometime during the first week of February, 1956, Comdr. Teddy
ordered Nelson and another Huk, @ Fredo, to contact the accused, Councilor Jose
Estrada of Gumaca, and inform the latter that Huk Lt. Alcantara (head of the
“Tadtad Unit or G-Men”) and Comdr. Teddy Corazon wanted to meet him
(Estrada) in Barrio Biga. Nelson and Fredo complied with the order; Fredo
talked with Estrada in Gumaca, as Nelson stood guard.  Estrada showed up in Barrio Biga, three days
later, at about 2:00 o’clock in the
afternoon.  Aside from Lt. Alcan­tara and
accused Jose Estrada, there were other Huks present during the meeting, among
them, Comdr. Teddy, Comdr. Emy, @ Romy, @ Fredo, @ July, @ Sonia and @ Nelson.
Estrada was asked by Lt. Alcantara who the richest man in Gumaca was; and the
former answered that “he would suggest the Principe
family” (ang maimumungkahi ko po ay ang pamilya Principe).  Asked by Lt. Alcantara if he was referring to
Reynaldo Principe, Estrada answered that if Reynaldo Principe were the one to be kidnapped, it would be difficult for
the family to ransom him for the reason that most of the properties of the Principes were in his name.  Instead, accused Estra­da recommended his
wife, Elvira Tañada de Principe, who could easily be ransomed.  Lt. Alcantara agreed to the suggestion of
Estrada saying, “if that is the case, yes, and you will be informed when
the kidnapping will take place”, to which Estrada answered:  “All the time you can depend upon
me.” Estrada then left the place that same afternoon at about 5:00 o’clock, after he and Lt. Alcantara had
talked about politics.

Sometime thereafter, Comdr. Teddy informed Nelson that the
latter, together with others in their Unit, would be “borrowed” by
Lt. Alcantara to supplement the men of the “Tadtad Unit” and join
them in the execution of the plan to kidnap Elvira Tañada de Principe.  And thenceforth, Nelson began receiving
orders directly from Lt. Alcantara.

In the afternoon of February
27, 1956, Lt. Alcan­tara and his men came down from Barrio Biga and
entered the town proper of Gumaca, Quezon. Alias Essi, @ Loring and @ Nelson
stood guard near the railroad station. 
After taking Elvira Tañada de Principe,
they fled and went through the mountains for three days and three nights,
with short stops to rest at some points on the way.  They hid Elvira Tañada de Principe in Barrio
Laguio, between the
municipalities of Lopez, Gumaca and Macalelon. 
Carmen Noceto was also taken by them to the mountains with Elvira that
same day.

On July 18, 1956,
@ Nelson surrendered to the authorities. 
He did not know then what the penalty for kidnapping for ransom
was.  He was investigated in Camp
Natividad on July 22.  Having just surrendered then, he was afraid
to be implicated in the Principe kidnap­ping
therein.  Later, he was investigated
again in Lucena.  He then decided to tell
the truth and did not mind anymore the consequences.  He gave his statement (Exh. X) wherein he
revealed his participation in the Principe kidnapping
case and the role played therein by accused Jose Estrada, on September 5, 1956.  Having known the truth from the said
statement, both the investigator and the prosecutor then told Nelson that he
would be a witness against Estrada after his discharge from the
information.  He was later arraigned on Novem­ber 20, 1956.

In the month of January, 1957, Antonio Nieva, brother of then
Chief of Police,Ricardo Nieva of Pasay
City, met @ Nelson near the house
of Col. del Castillo, Provincial Commander of Quezon.  They had a sort of con­ference.  Nieva promised Nelson to work out his case
with Malacañang, should he agree not to testify against Estrada in court.  Nieva urged him to deny the truth of his
statement (Exh. X) when the trial comes, and to testify that he had executed it
only because he had been maltreated, rewarded and given promises.  Nieva gave him P20.00 on that occasion.

Nelson at first denied having written Exhibit 2 (a letter signed by Nelson, addressed to
Estrada, on January 24, 1957), wherein Nelson appears to be telling Estrada
that they were then in a bad fix; that Col.
Castillo had come to know that Cong. Roces of the CAFA was coming to see
them, and he believed that Estrada was the one who had written the congressman,
and then caused Nelson and his companions to make a “turn about”;
that because of that suspicion of Col. Castillo, they were no longer permitted
to talk with any visitors; that Nelson, Gregana and Pedro Masilungan Estrada’s
former adversaries in the Barretto case – have all agreed to make a “turn
about”; and that the Fiscal had been informed that they really did not
know Estrada.  Later, however, he
admitted that he was the one who wrote it. 
On January 25, 1957, Nelson sent Estrada another letter, Exhibit 3
(Nelson appears to be urging Estrada: to write and complain to the CAFA; to
give them help so that they may be able to deny the truth of their “statements” which the PC
investigators had forced them to sign; and to request Nieva to intercede in
their behalf in Malacañang in order to put an end to the doings of the
Provincial Commander in Quezon).  On
January 27, 1957, Nelson wrote another letter, Exhibit 10 (styled “to whom
it may concern”, Nelson appears to be declar­ing here that he and his
companions knew nothing about the kidnapping of Elvira Principe, much less, the
alleged conference with Estrada regarding the same; that they signed their “statements” only because they
have been threatened, the investigators telling them that they would be
prosecuted if they would not coop­erate with the Government; that they had been
required to drink plenty of water; that they had been made to testify against
persons like Estrada, with the promise of a bright future and of money; and
that Col. Castillo was really mad at Nieva. 
Nelson appears to be request­ing Antonio Nieva also for “cigarette
money”, and for, his letters to be returned to him).  Nelson wrote another letter on the same date,
which he signed with the name of Pedro Masilungan.  (This letter, Exh. 11, purports to show that
Pedro Masilungan had also been forced to sign his “statement” and to
testify against Estrada by Capt. Zita). 
Nelson explained that he wrote to
Estrada because he had been coerced by two insular prisoners who were allowed
to enter his cell, warning him that his life would be in danger, should he fail
to do so.  He wrote Exh. 3 only after the
said pri­soners had talked to
him and to Melchor Gregana and Julio Ceribo who were with him in the same cell
at the time.

A few days thereafter,
probably on January 31, 1957, Nelson, along with Julio Ceribo, @ Sonia,
Pedro Masilungan, Antonio Batanes and others, was taken by Col. Castillo before
Col. Yan at Camp Crame.  He
then affirmed the truth of the contents of his statements (Exh. X) before the
said official.  He did the same when he
was taken before General Cabal who examined him on the said statement.  He, likewise, affirmed the truth thereof
before President Ramon Magsaysay before whom he was taken in the office of
Secretary Balao at Camp Murphy.  He
did not mention the letters he had written to Estrada then, because the
contents of said letters were false and he was afraid to tell any lies before
the highest authority of the land.  He
stated in those letters that he did not know Estrada, because he merely wanted
to make Estrada believe that he would really make a “turn about”.  But the same is false; it was only the idea
of Antonio Nieva.  Nieva had told them
that Estrada was ever willing to give them help, that is why Nelson and his
companions agreed to mulct him.  Thus, in
one of the said letters, Nelson had asked Estrada for “cigarettes
money”.

Nelson had been
discharged from the information on March 20, 1957; but he was still under PC custody because
he had demanded such protection pending the termination of the case.

TESTIMONY OF JULIO CERIBO:

Julio Ceribo testified
that he was a surrendered Huk; he joined the Hukbalahaps in 1946; he served
under various Huk Commanders in the field; in 1953, he was assigned as a member
of the unit – headed by Lt. Alcantara – with the old man Mateo del Castillo,
the highest in command; he knew about the kidnapping of Elvira Tañada de
Principe because he was with Lt. Alcantara when they kidnapped her; but even
before the actual kidnapping, he already knew about it because there was a conference
in Barrio Biga where it was agreed to kidnap her because she was the one
pointed to by Estrada; first, Lt. Alcantara approached Comdr. Teddy Corazon,
and then the latter ordered Huks Nelson and Fredo to contact Estrada in
the poblacion; three days after, Estrada came to Barrio Biga and conferred with
Lt. Alcantara, Comdr. Teddy Corazon, Comdr. Emy and others; Estrada was asked
by Lt. Alcantara then as to who was the richest in Gumaca, and Estrada
suggested Elvira Taftada de Principe because she could easily be ransomed;
Estrada explained that if it were her husband to be kidnapped, it would be hard
for the family to ransom him because the properties of the Principes were in
the name of Elvira’s husband, Reynaldo Principe; Lt. Alcantara agreed, and about
one week after that conference, they came down to Gumaca and took Elvira; he
stood guard in one of the streets in the town during the kidnapping; one of his
companions took along Carmen Noceto on the way so that Elvira Tañada de
Principe would have a companion; it was about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of February 27, 1956, when they
kidnapped Elvira; there were 16 of
them who executed the said kidnapping, among them, Lt. Alcan­tara,,Nato, Mike,
Heling, Nelson, Emilia, Carding Payat, Efren, another Efren and Del Moro; they
took Elvira and Carmen to the mountains between Macalelon and Lopez, Quezon;
they hid them there for two weeks in one of five ‘huts they built; Elvira was
later ransomed by her hus­band; Basilio
Angulo and three other persons brought the ransom money of P50,000.00, after
which both Elvira and Carmen Noceto were released; they kidnapped Elvira Tañada de
Principe because they were in need of a large sum of money; on August 7, 1956,
he was with the Huks that had an encounter with the government forces in
Usiwan, Lucban, Quezon; there he was wounded in the right foot, and soon,
unable to withstand the deprivations anymore, he decided to have a “new
life”; he proposed to surrend­er to the Mayor of Majayjay, Laguna, thru the interces­sion of Juan Cuates
of Barrio Botocan; he had no chance to talk with the Mayor, however, because
when they came to get him, the BCT soldiers were the ones who got hold of him
first, and they took him directly to their head­quarters in Majayjay, Laguna;
from there, he was taken to Canlubang where he was questioned as to when he
first joined the Huks; then he was transferred to Lucena City where he was
investigated by Eddie Recuenco; after that he was brought to the Court of First
Instance of San Pablo where he was charged of rebellion; but later he was
discharged from the information thru the efforts of his brother who secured the
services of Atty. Ribong; his
brother showed to him his discharge papers, but he was still kept in the stockade at Lucena City, with Nel son, he was
not released; and when he was investigated there in connection with the
kidnapping of Elvira Tañada de Principe, he had to admit; at first he wanted to
deny it, but when Nelson pointed to him, he was frightened and had to tell the
truth – that he was with the group that kidnapped Elvira – that is why he was
included in the information in this
case; but when he was arraigned, he pleaded “not guilty”, assisted by
one Atty. Gonzales; he pleaded “not guilty” to the charge because he
knew that kidnapping is a very serious crime, for even up in the mountains they
had been told that the penalty for kidnapping was severe and “we had
better be dead than caught alive”; but the truth is, he was really with
the kidnappers who took Elvira Tañada de Principe; he knew Atty. Franco, the
latter introduced himself to him and told him that he was his counsel; they first
met it Lucena City, then for a number of times later in Gumaca, Quezon, where
they talked about his case; he told him (Atty. Franco) that he could not deny
the circumstances because they were all true; they met again after that in the
stockade in Lucena, when Atty. Franco brought some typewritten papers which he
was asked to sign; the papers (Exh. 16) was shown to him, but he could hardly
read it because it was held by Atty. Franco far from his face; they were in the
kitchen of the stockade then, and Atty. Franco told him to sign it at once
because the soldiers might come; he insisted that he should sign it because he
was his lawyer, and it was for his benefit – for his acquittal; but he had no
hand in the, preparation of that document, and its contents are not true; he
met Atty. Franco again in Majayjay later when he was granted leave; Atty.
Franco instructed him to go to Manila because he would prepare an affidavit,
but he did not go there, he left Majayjay immediately even if he had not fully
enjoyed his 19-day leave; he later told Capt. Alejo (government prosecutor)
that Atty. Franco had made him sign Exh. 16; its contents, except for his age,
are not true; for the truth is that he knew everything about the kidnapping of
Elvira Tañada de Principe; the document was already prepared when it was shown
to him by Atty. Franco, and the latter compelled him to sign it; when he was at
the stockade in Lucena with Nelson, he knew that Nelson was writing letters,
and that he (Nelson) was signing their names on the letters, but Nelson never
showed the letters to him; he came to know the letters to accused Estrada only
when the said letters were later discovered; he knew Col. Yan, he was taken
before him at Camp Crame; Col. Yen asked him whether or not his declarations in
his statement (Exh. H) were true, and he confirmed them; he was next taken
before Gen. Cabal, before whom he declared that he had executed Exh. H
voluntarily, i. e., that he was not maltreated by the PC; later he was taken
before the late President Magsaysay in the office of the Secretary Balao, and there, he also affirm­ed the truth
of his statement before the President.

TESTIMONY OF GONZALO MALLARE:

Gonzalo Mallare testified
that he was a former Huk, he surrendered to the authorities on March 20, 1957; he
joined the Huks in Manila, as early as April 1948; in December of that year, he was apprehended by the PC, and was maltreated; they released him,
later, however, be­cause the Communist Party had then not yet been declared
illegal; but after that he went up the mountains, and from the position of mere
clerk in the Manila office of the Huks, he rose to higher positions; he was
again apprehended by the PC in 1949, and again he was released in February, 1950;
thereafter, he rejoined the Huks in the mountains; in 1955, he was educational
chairman of RECO 4 – charged with the duty of indoctrinating the people with
the tents of the HMB, which he learned from Dr. Jesus Lava – with jurisdiction
in the province of Rizal, half of Laguna, and the whole province of Quezon;
about May 1, 1954, as he and his men were passing thru Barrio Labnig, Gumaca, Quezon,
he was introduced to accused Estrada by Huk Comdr.. Tony who was then operating
in the Bondoc Peninsula; Estrada told him then that he was a friend of the Huks
and the civilians, and that he was influential with the Army; Estrada told him
further, that if he could be of help to him, he would do it; re­membering that he was in need
of a typewriter and a mimeographing machine then, he asked Estrada if he could
help him procure them for him, and Estrada promised to do so; in the afternoon
of that same day, he gave P650.00 – P500.00 coming from him, and P150.00 coming
from Comdr. Onoy – to Comdr. Matta, for delivery to Estrada; he knew that
Estrada received the money for, soon, he received the typewriter and the
mimeographing machine.  Comdr. Matta
informing him then that Estrada had sent him (Matta) a letter stating that the amount given was P43.00 short of
the cost of the typewriter and the mimeographing machine, aside from the
expenses of the two persons who had brought them; this typewriter and
mimeographing machine he acquired thru Estrada’s help, was delivered by him to
the 26th BCT when he surrendered; he met Estrada again about a week before
February 23, 1956, at noon, in Barrio Biga, Gumaca, Quezon; he was with Comdr.
Teddy then, in his way to contact a certain
teacher who had previously promised to help him buy some supplies; he failed to
contact the teacher, and as he approached Lt. Alcantara to bid him goodbye, he
heard the conversation between Lt. Alcantara and accused Estrada; Lt. Alcantara asked Estrada if Elvira Tañada de Principe was the
richest woman in Gumaca who could be kidnapped, and Estrada answered that she
was; that was all that he heard; Lt. Alcantara then borrowed some of his men
and firearms; and when his men rejoined him later, they reported to him that
they had participated in the kidnapping; he recalled that he came from Barrio
Malimatik, Lopez, when he went to Barrio Biga, Gumaca; he was with Comdr. Emy;
those present in that meeting in Barrio Biga, Gumaca, Quezon, were Estrada, Lt.
Alcantara, Comdr. Teddy Corazon, Emy, Fredo and others; on March 20, 1957, he
surrendered; the following day his affidavit was taken by an investigator; it
was a very long one, but he purposely did not make any mention about the
meeting in Biga, Gumaca, where he saw and heard the conversation during the
meeting between Estrada and Lt. Alcantara, because he did not want his name
linked with the latter; he wanted to avoid any mention about the kidnappings in
the Bondoc Peninsula, because he feared that he would be included in it; that
is why, when he was taken before Secretary Balao in Camp Murphy, he told him
not to ask him about the kidnapping; but when he later met Antonio Campaniero
Nelson, Melchor Gregana Rony and Julio Ceribo @ July who have knowledge of the
secrets of these kidnappings, and the purchase of the typewriter and the
mimeographing machine thru Estrada, and after knowing that Nelson, Ceribo and
Angel Veran were already accused of the kidnapping, he decided to reveal the
matter; and he believed that if the government were to be convinced of his
loyalty, they would realize that he had nothing to do with all the kidnappings
in the Bondoc Peninsula; that is why, since his surrender, he had been helping the Army in its campaign for peace and order;
he had contacted his former companions in the Bondoc Peninsula so that they may
return and live peacefully; on November 27, 1957, about 92 of them surrendered.

Other witnesses testified
for the prosecution, but their testimonies deal largely on how the ransom money
of P50,000.00 was finally agreed upon and delivered to Lt. Alcantara thru
couriers.  Thru them, the letters of Lt.
Alcantara to the Principes and vice versa (Exhibits A to E) and the
photograph of Lt. Alcantara (Exh. F) were identified.  This picture and other exhibits, were
admitted as evidence for the prosecution.

For his defense, accused Jose Estrada denied his complicity in the commission of the kidnapping of
Elvira Tañada de Principe in the
afternoon of February 27, 1956.  He
swore that he had never been to Barrio Biga, Gumaca, in the month of February,
1956, much less ever conferred with any Lt. Alcantara for the alleged
purpose of pointing to Elvira Tañada de Principe as the best kidnap victim in
Gumaca.  His testimony may be reduced as
follows: he knew Elvira Tañada de Principe; her family was his neighbors, and
his younger brother, Fernando, was the godson of Elvira’s father; he was
elected councilor of Gumaca from 1948 to 1951; again he was elected coun­cilor
for the term 1956-1960; he was a recognized guerrilla and a pensioner of U.S.
Government; he belonged to the following civic organizations: President, Gumaca
Club 37; Worshipful Master of the Masons; Chairman, Boy Scouts Organization;
President, PTA District League; President (twice), Purok Castillo; Vice
President, Jaycees of Gumaca; Chairman, Civilian Affairs Organization; and Vice
Chairman, Red Cross Campaign in,1951 for Quezon Province; the barracks of the
8th BCT in Gumaca was constructed through him; he was the moving spirit in the
construction of Camp Natividad in 1948, which now houses the 38th PC Company;
he joined the pacification campaign in the towns of Quezon which brought about
the surrender of several firearms; he exerted efforts for the construction of
the Army Officers Quarters of the 26th BCT in Calauag, Quezon; he is an
informant of the Philippine Army; such informant, he had caused the arrest of
several persons; and he was commended by Col. Baltazar for his efforts
and cooperation with the Army; he came to know prosecution witness Antonio
Companiero alias Nelson only in court, and it is not true that he and Huk Fredo came to his  house to deliver the message of Lt. Alcantara;
Nelson sent him letters during his confinement in the provincial jail of
Quezon, and he had sent them to Congressman Roces Of the CAFA; he did
not know also Huk Comdr. Teddy Corazon, for he came to know him only in court;
Teddy Corazon told him in jail that it was not true that he had instructed Huks
Nelson and Fredo to see him before; on November 25, 1956, he met prosecution
witness Julio Ceribo in jail, and
the latter confessed to him that he (Ceribo) did not know him (Estrada), and
that Ceribo said he merely implicated him because the PC had forced him to
include him; detained prisoners Gutierrez and Mangubat were present when Ceribo
told him so; he likewise did not know Huk Gonzalo Mallare (prosecution witness)
before the trial, and it is not
true that they met each other before; there is no truth in Mallare’s testimony
that he (accused) purchased a typewriter
and a mimeographing machine for him; in fact, when he learned that the said
typewriter and mimeographing ma­chine was loaded in one of his trucks for
delivery to the Huks, he informed Captain Daza of the Army about it, only that
Capt. Daza happened not to be there at the time; there is also no truth in the
testimony of Beato Glinoga; this prosecution witness, as a matter of fact,
begged his forgiveness after testifying against him; when they met in the
office of the Chief of Police of Gumaca; at the time, Col. Castillo came along,
and finding them together, threw out Beato Glinoga and then challenged him
(Estrada) and his brother to a fight; in fact, Beato Glinoga became his own
witness after the relief of Col. Castillo as provincial commander of Quezon; he
was combat officer in  the guerrilla
forces; charges of murder were filed against him after liberation, but he had
been given the benefits of the guerrilla amnesty; he was also accused in the
Barretto kidnapping case, but his participation there was only that he had
contracted the kidnappers at the behest of the family of the victims, for
purposes of reducing the amount demanded by the Huks; on the day of the
kidnapping of Elvira Tañada de Principe, he was at home; upon learning about
it, he helped the family in raising the ransom money, he contributed P10.00; he
was the largest copra dealer in Gumaca; his customers owed him not less than
P60,000.00; Elvira Tañada de Principe’s father-in-law, Marciano Principe, was
also one of the largest copra dealers in the town, but there were other large
copra dealers there; he knew, thru the newspapers, about the other kidnapping
cases in the Bondoc Peninsula – the kidnap­ping of Ex-Mayor Yumul of Lopez, of
Wee King of Catanau­an, of the Barrettors of Gumaca, of De Leon of Catanauan
and of Elvira Tañada de Principe of Gumaca; he (Estrada) had not been the
victim of kidnapping.  Asked by the court
whether kidnappings disappeared in Gumaca after his arrest, accused Estrada
refused to answer.

ELISEO RAMOS, a detained prisoner for rebellion in the provincial
jail of Lucena City, testified that he knew prosecution witness Julio Ceribo;
they were both Huks, and had occasion to meet each other in the mountains; the
last time he met Ceribo was on November 25, 1956, when Ceribo was also confined
in the provincial jail of Lucena; he asked him (Ceribo) then why he was
detained, and the latter answered that he was being used as witness against accused Estrada; there were
many detention prisoners at the time they talked to each other, among them were
Hilarion Gutierrez, Juanito Bautista, Cenon Entiosco and Pedro Masilungan;
during the course of their conversation, accused Estrada appeared, and he asked
Ceribo if he knew him; Ceribo then told Estrada that he did not know him; asked
why he was going to testify against Estrada when according to him he did not
know the said accused, Ceribo ans­wered that the investigators had promised to
discharge him from the complaint, and that was the only way he  (Ceribo) could save himself; and Ceribo told
him: “Ikaw ang tumayo sa eking kalagayan, kulang lamang ako’y patayin sa
bugbog”; Ceribo further confided to him that had he known such treatment would happen to him, “he would not
have surrendered.”

Other witnesses – PEDRO MANGUBAT, a co-accused of Estrada in the
Barretto kidnapping case; CENON ENTIOSCO, a prisoner serving sentence for
robbery with rape and physical injuries, and also for illegal possession of firearm; and HILARION GUTIERREZ, another
detention prisoner on charges of murder and robbery of which he was later
convicted – testified that they were all in the provincial jail of Quezon when prosecution witness Julio
Ceribo was brought in there; that they all heard the conversation between Ramos
and Ceribo on the one hand, and between Ceribo and accused Estrada on the other
hand, and that they knew that Ceribo had told accused Estrada then that he (Ceribo) did not know Estrada.

Col. ESTANISLAO BALTAZAR testified that in 1952, he was
commanding officer of the 26th BCT, stationed in Calauag,Quezon; in one of the
meetings he held in the town hall of Gumaca, asking the people to cooperate with
the Army in its campaign against the dissidents, one of those present stood up
and said, “How can you expect the people to help the Armed Forces when
they do not treat the barrio people
well, they are taken to the headquarters of the Army and there they are
maltreated and compelled to admit crimes which they did not commit?”; he
knew later on that that man who had spoken was Councilor Estrada; and soon he
solicited his help; Estrada rendered valuable services to the Army then, for he
had extensive connections with the barrio people and he supplied valuable
information, as to the move­ments of the Huks in the place; and in recognition
of his services, he gave Estrada a written
commendation (Exh. 18). Col. Baltazar admitted tho that the Huks were very active
in the place during his stay there
as BCT Commander, and that they (the Huks) had an upper hand.  He admitted further that the information
supplied by Estrada was always late, that was why they had no encounter with
the dissidents.  They almost caught up
with the Huks in a barrio when they went
to the place to verify the report made by Estrada, for the residents informed
them that the Huks had left only about an hour before their arrival.

Major FELIPE BRUAN declared that he was formerly stationed in Gumaca,
and there he came to know Estrada.  The
latter gave the PC then valuable information regarding the movements of the
Huks In May, 1954, Estrada reported to
them the presence of Huks near the boundary of Lopez and Gumaca, and they went
to the place to verify the report; unluckily, the Huks had left the day before
when they reached the barrio they had visited. 
He was in command of the PC Detachment in Gumaca when Elvira Tañada de
Principe was kidnapped.  Estrada did not
make any report then about the presence of the Huks in Gumaca before the
incident.  But after the incident, he (Bruan) received news about it and he
immediately pursued the kidnappers. 
There was an en­counter that ensued when they had contact with the Huks
at about 6:00 or 7:00 o’clock in the evening.  There was firing for about 30 minutes, after
which they re­turned to the town because they soon lost contact with them.

Capt. JUAN DAZA testified that he was once stationed in Gumaca as
commanding officer of Love Company, 26th BCT; even before he was stationed at
the place, he already had news about the valuable services of Estrada to the
Army; so, he sought Estrada’s help when he moved to the place; and as expected, Estrada rendered
valuable services; one time, Estrada informed him that there were three (3) amazons who were willing to
surrender, and he soon brought them – Huk Amazons Liwayway, Leonor and Amy to
his camp; these amazons were all wives of Huk Commanders; in 1954, they were
able to kill a Huk named Absalon at Barrio Sastre thru the information supplied
by Estra­da; on May 2, 1954, they received information from Es­trada that the
Huks had loaded some things on one of his trucks, for delivery to Barrio
Labnig; he sent men to verify the report and there was an encounter; they did
not catch up with the Huks, however; and according to Estrada, the things
loaded on his truck were a type­writer and a mimeographing machine.

The defense later placed the victim, Elvira Tañada de Principe,
on the witness stand.  From her testimony, the defense
elicited the fact that during her confine­ment in the mountains, Lt. Alcantara
inquired from her, if she was the wife of Teodosio Principe.  Upon her answer that she was not the wife of
Teodosio, Lt. Alcantara then asked her if she was the wife of Reynaldo
Principe, to which question, she gave an affirmative answer.

QUIRINO RAVELA, one of the companions of Lt. Alcantara in the
kidnapping of Elvira, and who had been sentenced already in this case upon a
plea of “guilty” testified that while in the mountains, he overheard the conversation between Lt. Alcantara and Elvira
Tañada, wherein Lt. Alcantara asked the
victim if she was “Doctora”. To this question, Elvira answered that
she was not the doctora; she cried then and said, “I am the poorest among
the Principes“.

MARCELO BARRAL, a
resident of Gumaca who sells cop­ra to the Principes, testifies that he was in the house of
Marciano Principe when Elvira arrived from the mountains after her
release.  He then heard Elvira talk to
her sis­ter Consuelo and exclaim
in Tagalog:  “Ako pala Ate Consuelo
ay pinagkamalan, at ang akala pala ay ako ang asawa ni Dosio”.

In September, 1958 (after
about one year and three months after he had testified for the prosecution),
BEATO GLINOGA was placed on the stand by the defense.  He then made a complete turn about regarding
the previous instructions of Lt. Alcantara for him to see first accused Estrada
before delivering the ransom note to the Prin­cipes for the reason that Estrada knew all about
it.  This time, he declared that he was
not so instructed by Lt. Alcantara; that the truth is, that he was directed by
Lt. Alcantara to proceed to the house of the Principes, without mention
whatsoever of the name of Estrada; that he made mention of and implicated
Estrada, upon orders of the PC investigators that he should mention Estrada in
his affidavit, and which orders he followed, because they would not stop
maltreating him; that on his way to the house of the Principes, he met Federico
Caparros and another man, and together they boarded a truck going to the
poblacion of Gumaca; that he even showed to them the letter he was to deliver
to the Principes when they asked him where he was going; and that he alighted
right in front of the house of Marciano
Principe when the truck reached the
town.

FEDERICO CAPARROS and
TOMAS SOMBILLA both testified and corroborated the statement of Glinoga
that they met Glinoga on March 5, 1956;
that they asked him where he was going then, and Glinoga told them that
he was going to the poblacion, showing to them a letter which he pulled out of his pocket; that Glinoga did not
stop at any other place, but went directly to the house of Marciano Principe.

ATTY. ANDRES FRANCO, upon
permission of Julio Ceribo, declared that he was the counsel of Julio Ceribo in
this case, and another case for rebellion in Laguna; that he prepared Ceribo’ statement
(Exh. 16) at the instance of Julio
Ceribo who had supplied the facts contained in the said statement; that
he prepared the statement first and then took it to his place of con­finement,
asking him to sign it only after he had read the statement and understood its
contents; and that Julio Ceribo swore to it before Notary Public Rodolfo
Garduque whom he (Franco) had requested to come along.  (The trial court appears to have commented,
after examining Exh. 16, that the same was not necessary in the defense of
Julio Ceribo in the present case, considering that Julio Ceribo had already
been discharged from the information when Atty. Franco secured the said statement
of Ceribo).

The testimony of Atty. Franco was substantially corroborated by
Atty. Rodolfo Garduque who declared that he ratified Ceribo’s statement only
after he was sure that Ceribo understood it; and that there were wit­nesses (brought
along by Atty. Franco) who witnessed the signing of the document.

ANTONIO NIEVA testified that he was a former Army, Officer
stationed in Pitogo, Quezon; Estrada was their informer when he was stationed
there, and Estrada helped in the surrender of many Huks; he approached Col. Castillo
regarding the case of Estrada
because he believed that Estrada was innocent; he met Col. Castillo several
times regarding the matter, and he told him that he was wrong in prosecuting
accused Estrada; but Col. Castillo confided to him that his career was at stake
in this case, for he had been instructed to get the “big shots” from
the second district of Quezon; later, Col. Castillo also confided to him that
he was interested in monetary considerations which he itemized as follows: for
Estrada’s involvement in the Barretto case, P20,000.00; in this case,
P20,000.00; and for eight (8) other
murder cases, P2,000.00 each; Col. Castillo then told him that if he could give
him P50,000.00, he would still be eco­nomizing by P6,000.00; he then
immediately went to see the President and asked for the relief of Col. Castillo
as Provincial Commander of Quezon, and President Magsay­say then gave him a
note addressed to Gen. Cabal;
when he met Gen. Cabal,
however, accompanied by Gov. Stayana, Jardin and his (Antonio Nieva’s) brother,
then Chief of Police of Pasay City, he received the same answer as Col.
Castillo’s from Gen. Cabal, who told him further that “as long as he was
Chief of the Philippine Consta­bulary, Col. Castillo will not be touched in
Quezon Province; he never expected to hear from Gen. Cabal the same words which
Col. Castillo had confided to him, and in exasperation he exclaimed:  “it seems to me that I am not talking to
the General”; in the note given by the President to Gen. Cabal, the
Prersident told the General that the Nieva brothers knew more of the peace and
order conditions in Quezon, and should be left alone; he was told by the
President to report to him the following Monday, but unluckily, the President
died on the Sunday before their appointment; he recalled that he used to be in
good.terms with Col. Castillo before, but he became indifferent to him when he
(Castillo) failed to stop him from taking interest in the Estrada case, telling
him that P20,000.00 was not enough; he insisted on his demand for P50,000.00.

With the offer of various
exhibits, including a copy of the decision of Court of First Instance of
Quezon in the Barretto case, wherein accused Estrada and all his co-accused
were acquitted, the defense rested its case. 
It appears that before the defense did so, they made an attempt to put
back prosecution witness Julio Ceribo on the witness stand in order that he
could explain why he allegedly had testified falsely against accused Estrada
when he testified for the prosecution in this case, but the court below did not
allow the defense to put back the witness. 
The trial appears to have been delayed also for a considerable time
because the defense had made attempts to produce Lt. Alcantara in court, in which
attempt they failed.  Gen. Yen testified
that a certain Pepe Alcantara working with the Army was still operating in the
field, and that his whereabouts was un­known.

In rebuttal, the
prosecution placed on the witness stand Col. Francisco del Castillo, who
testified as fol­lows: he was Provincial Commander of Quezon from May 2, 1956
to July 7, 1958; he was on a mission then – the prosecution of all the
kidnapping cases in the Bondoc Peninsula, namely: the case of Wee King of
Catanauan (1954); of Saturnino Barretto and his children of Gumaca (1952); of
Ex-Mayor Yumul of Lopez (1955); of Rosita de Leon of Catanauan (1955); and of
Elvira Tañada Principe (this case, 1956); he had no personal grudge against
Estrada, for even before he came to Quezon as provincial commander, Estrada Was
already accused in the kidnapping case of Saturnino Barretto and his children;
Antonio Nieva and many other persons came to him and asked that the case
against Estrada be quashed, but he refused; he turned down the immoral proposals
of Antonio Nieva; he did not prosecute him, however, on those immoral propo­sals
because it was hard to prove, as there were no witnesses; Nieva used to
approach him during the time of his rest near his house; later, he learned that
Anto­nio Nieva had tampered with the witnesses for the prose­cution; so, he
ordered his men to put          Nieva
“off limits” in his camp; Nieva complained to higher
authorities in Quezon City, that was why said higher authorities called him
there to the PC Headquarters; he then brought along the witnesses of the
government against Estrada, and they were investigated by the said higher
authorities; these witnesses were the ones who revealed the participation of Estrada
in this case; and he never demanded P50,000.00 as consideration for the
quashing of the cases against Estrada.

After a careful evaluation of the evidence thus set
forth, We find that the inculpatory facts proven by the testimonies of
witnesses for the prosecution to es­tablish the guilt of accused Jose Estrada
are as
follows: The Hukbalahaps in and around
the mountains of the Bondoc Peninsula were the friends of accused Jose
Estrada.  With and through his help, the chairman of the educa­tional
committee of the HMB in the region, acquired a typewriter and a mimeographing
machine on May 1 or 2, 1954.^[1] About the first week of February,^[2] or about a week before
the actual kidnapping of Elvira Tañada de Principe on February
27, 1956,^[3] Huk Lt. Pepe Alcantara met with other Huk
Commanders in Barrio Biga, Guma­ca, Quezon. Lt. Alcantara gave some
instructions to Comdr. Teddy Corazon then, and the latter ordered huks @ Nelson
and @ Fredo to contact councilor Estrada of Gumaca in the poblacion and to tell
him to see Lt. Al­cantara in Barrio Biga.^[4] Alias Nelson and @ Fredo were able to talk
with Estrada in the town, and three days later, Estrada met with Lt. Alcantara
and his com­panions in Barrio Biga.^[5] During that meeting between them, Lt.
Alcantara asked Estrada who (for purposes of kidnapping) was the richest man in
Gumaca, and Estrada answered in Tagalog, “ang maimumungkahi ko sa inyo ay ang
mga Principe“. Lt. Alcantara inquired if it was
Reynaldo Principe, to which question Estrada answered “no” because
“it would be difficult for the family to ransom him for most of the
properties were in his name.” Lt. Alcantara then asked, “whom can we
kidnap?” Estrada suggested Elvira Tañada Principe who “could easily
be ransomed.” Lt. Alcantara agreed to the suggestion of Estrada saying:
“if that is the case, yes, let us kid­nap Elvira Tañada Principe.^[6] “it will be good for us to
kidnap Elvira Tañada Principe.”^[7]
The huk lieutenant told Estrada further: “you will be advised when the kid­napping
will take place;”^[8]
and Estrada answered: “all the time you can depend upon me.”^[9]
In the afternoon of February 27, 1956,
Lt. Alcantara and his men came down from Barrio Biga to Gumaca and kidnapped
Elvira Taftada Principe from the store on the ground floor of the house of her
father-in-law, Marciano Principe.  They
took her, together with Carmen Noceto whom they picked up along the way, to the
mountains near the boundaries of the towns of Gumaca, Lopez and Macalelon.  The Huks kept them there for about two weeks.^[10]
Thereafter Lt. Alcantara and some of his men went to Barrio Villa Tañada,
Gumaca, and contacted the barrio lieutenant, Beato Glinoga, on the night of March 4, 1956.  Identifying himself and his companions, as
the kidnappers of Elvira Tañada Principe, Lt. Alcantara asked Beata Glinoga to
deliver his letter to the Principes.  He instructed Glinoga to see Coun­cilor
Estrada first in the town, so that the latter could accompany him to the house
of the Principes, and then to the mountains where he
(Lt. Alcantara) would later meet them.^[11]
The chosen courier followed the orders of the Huk Commander.  He went to the poblacion of Gumaca the
following morning.  He looked for
Estrada, but he failed to contact him. 
So, he went directly to the house of Marciano Principe and personally
delivered the letter of Lt. Alcantara entrusted to him.^[12]
Marciano Principe read the letter of the Huk Commander, and then wrote an
answer.  He gave the same to Basilio Angulo,
a compadre of his who was at the house at the time, and requested him to join
Beato Glinoga back to Lt. Al­cantara in Barrio Villa Tañada.  The courier and the emissary went together
and met Lt. Alcantara that same evening, in the mountains of Villa Tañada.^[13]
Basilio Angulo and Lt. Alcantara then
had a conference.  As they did, one of
the huks present nudged Glinoga
and inquired from him where Estrada was, and Glinoga explained that he was not
able to see him.^[14]

Basically, Estrada’s defense is that the charge against him is
but a pure concoction.  Naturally, he
vehemently denied the truth of the above inculpatory facts proven by the
prosecution, by showing that he could not have been in Barrio Biga, Gumaca, nor
conferred with Lt. Alcantara at the place in February, 1956, be­cause he never
left the town of Gumaca during the said month, but once – when he went to
Lucena City to renew the plates of his trucks. 
He sought to destroy the credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution.  He tried hard to convince
the trial court that a man of his stature and character – an elective official
of social prominence and with substantial income, and commended by a ranking PC officer for “his
exploits and undertakings” as an “informer” of the Army – could
not have been in league with the Huks in the mountains, and propose to them a neighbor and family friend as an
object of the heinous crime of kidnapping for ransom.  His version, however, failed to convince the
trial court of his inno­cence of the crime imputed to him.

Accused Jose Estrada has
appealed from the decision.

Appellant contends that
the trial court had fallen into grave error in giving faith and credit to the
testi­monies of huks Antonio Campaniero Nelson, Julio Ceribo @ July, and
Gonzalo Mallare @ Comdr. Romy.  Attention
is called to the fact that Nelson and Ceribo – former co-accused turned state
witnesses – had no choice but to testify against appellant in consideration of
the prose­cution’s promise to discharge them from the information and save
their skin, while the case as against witness Mallare was apparently dismissed,
on motion of the prose­cution for alleged insufficiency of evidence, purposely
to make him testify against herein appellant. 
Under the circumstances, it is argued, these witnesses had no option but
to testify as the prosecution desired – to secure the conviction of the
appellant at all cost.

There should be no
quarrel that Nelson and Ceribo must have testified as state witnesses in consideration
of the prosecution’s promise to discharge them from the information in this case;
but that is not true with respect to witness Gonzalo Mallare, who appears to
have testified long after the case against him had been dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence.  But these
circumstances alone – short of any showing that in consideration of the State’s
leniency, these witnesses had been ordered and had agreed, not only to testify
for the pro­secution but also to prevaricate in their espousal of the Peoples
cause – cannot detract from their .credibi­lity.  We have examined the testimonies of these
witnesses with painstaking solicitude, in our sincere desire to find the usual
signs of wavering and wobbling in declarations of lying witnesses, and We note
that notwithstanding the fact that they have been subjected to extra-ordinarily
long and searching cross-examinations – lasting several days of trial – by the
brilliant lawyers for the defense, they never fell into serious contradictions
in their long declarations, which could reasonably be ex­pected if they were
merely concocting lies.  On the contrary
they withstood the ordeals of the lengthy cross-examinations, explaining every
point on which the coun­sels for the defense dwelled, in a straight – forward
and satisfactory way.  The above
contention of appellant, therefore, cannot be accepted.

Much emphasis is placed
by appellant upon the cir­cumstance that during his confinement in the
provincial jail in Lucena City, prosecution witness Nelson (then confined in
the PC stockade) had written several letters addressed to him and his witness,
Antonio Nieva, altoge­ther purporting to show that Nelson had been telling them
that he and his companions who had previously given statements implicating
herein appellant in the commission of the crime, before the government
investigators, did not really know him (Estrada); and that they implicated
herein appellant in their said statements because they were maltreated by the
investigators into signing them.  It
is our considered opinion, however, after considering the surrounding
circumstances under which the letters adverted to were written, that their
contents are false.  Nelson declared that
Antonio Nieva talked with him before he wrote the letters.  Nieva explained to him that by testifying as
state witness, he cannot be relieved of his responsibility in the
commission of the crime.  Pointing out
that he (Nelson) was not just a witness but an accused (Nelson had not been discharged from the informa­tion at
the tine), Nieva warned Nelson that he would also be punished like Estrada, and
perhaps go to the electric chair.  With
assurance of his close connection with Malacañang, Nieva promised Nelson that
he could do something about this case in Malacañang, and Estrada would be
willing to help them, provided they would not testify against the latter,
otherwise, something bad would happen
to them.  And with this idea brought out
to him by Nieva, Nelson wrote a letter (Exh. 2) to Estrada on January
24, 1957.  The witness explained as follows:

“Sinabi po sa akin ni Tony (Antonio Nieva) na huwag lamang
kalabanin si Jose Estrada ay siya ang bahalang hu­mango sa aming mga testigo at
kung kakalabanin namin ay mapapasama kami, at binigyan po, kami ng P20.00
suhol.  At sinabi pa niyang siya ang
bahalang lumakad sa Malacañang at sa panahong kami ay bibistahan gaya nito ay tanggihan namin at sabihin na kung kaya kami nakapagsabi ng sa
amin ‘statement’ ay kami sinaktan at ginantingpalaan at pinangakuan.”^[15]

Regarding his letter (Exh. 3), Nelson
declared that he did not write it voluntarily. 
About noontime of January 25, day after he had written the first letter,
two prisoners wearing yellow suits entered their cell in the stockade and asked
who were the witnesses against Estra­da in this case; and the witnesses pointed
to one another.  One of the said
prisoners then told Nelson that if he still valued his life, he should prepare
a letter to Estrada and make him believe that they will not testify against
him.  Nelson explained that he believed
this to be a threat on their lives, for he thought that they might have been
bribed to liquidate them.  So, he wrote
the letter, in the presence of the said prisoners.  With respect to a portion of another letter
(Exh. 10), dated January 27, 1957
(letter was styled “to whom it may concern”), Nelson asked Estrada to
give him some amount for cigarettes, and herein appellant would capitalize on
this apparent weakness of character of Nelson to destroy his credibility.  We are more inclined, however, to disregard
this theory because We found that the witness had frankly admitted that he did it because Antonio Nieva had assured them
that Estrada was willing to help them, and while confined in jail they (the
witnesses) had agreed to milk him.  In
fact, in another portion of the said letter, Nelson had asked Estrada to return
his letter; and Nelson explained in court later that he wanted to destroy the
letter because if Col. Castillo should come to know about the lies he had told
therein, the more they would suffer (lalo kaming mahihirapan).  Thus, he explained to the court below:

“Ang ibig ko pong sabihin ay lalo kaming kukulungin sa loob ng
‘stockade’ kung malalamang kami’y sumulat kay Estrada at magpapanday ng
kasinungalingan.  Yayamang kami
na-stockade at kami halos incomunicado
pa ay dahil nga sa pangyayari ng kami kausapin ni Tony Nieva na gawin namin ang
lahat ng paraan sa pagsisinungaling, tanggihan namin ang mga ‘statement’ na
nilagdaan naming kusangloob. 
Nangangahulugang babaligtad kami sa katotohanan tungo sa kasinungalingan.”

This jibes with the other evidence of the
prosecution of record, and admitted by the witness for the defense con­cerned,
that Antonio Nieva, for having shown extra-ordinary interest in this case, had
thereafter been ordered “off limits” inside the PC camp.  Finally, there is another circumstance that
adds a ring of truth to the testimony of Nelson.  Col. Castillo testified that Antonio Nieva
had complained to higher authorities about him. 
This is admitted by defense witness Nieva who declared that he went to
see the late President Magsaysay and General Cabal, and asked for the relief of
Col. Castillo as provincial commander of Quezon province by reason of his
actuations in this case.  As a result of
Nieva’s complaint, Col. Castillo was called by higher authorities to Quezon
City; and Col. Castillo brought along the witnesses of the government before
Col. Yan, General Cabal, and then to the late President Magsaysay.  Nelson testified that when he was taken to
Col. Yan in Quezon City, the said
official asked him if the contents of his
affidavit (Exh. X, wherein he had implicated appellant Estrada) were true, and
he affirmed the contents thereof.  The
witness also declared that he was cross-examined (binabaligtad ng
tanong sa aming ‘statement’) on his statement by General Cabal before whom he
likewise, affirmed the truth thereof, explaining to the General that he was not
threatened, harmed, or promised any reward when he voluntarily affixed his
signature on the document.  Nelson made
the same affirmation before Pre­sident Magsaysay on the same occasion.  And when asked why he did not mention about
the letters (Exhibits 2, 3,10, 11 & 12) now heavily relied upon by herein
appellant, Nelson declared outright in court that the contents of the said
letters were not true, and he was afraid to tell any falsehood to the highest
authority of the land.  Such
explanations, considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances, leave no
iota of doubt that the witness had told the truth in court.

Again herein appellant
would capitalize upon the circumstances that both witnesses Ceribo and Mallare
have made apparently contradictor statements (affidavits) at different
times during their confinement.  More
specifically it is pointed out that Mallare had disclaimed any knowledge about
the kidnappings in the Bon­doc Peninsula in his statement (Exh. 17) which is
contrary to his later declaration in court that he heard the conversation
between Lt. Alcantara and herein appellant in Barrio Biga, Gumaca, regarding
the kidnap­ping of Elvira Tañada Principe. 
This witness explained that he did not mention in exhibit 17 about the
parti­cipation of Estrada, because he did not want his name linked with the
name of Lt. Alcantara.  At the time, he
had not met Nelson, Ceribo and Gregana.  He learned later, however, that these
persons were already accused in this case, and knowing that they knew all the
secrets of the kidnapping, he decided to reveal his knowledge thereof.  At any rate, it will be noted that Mallare’s
testimony regarding the involvement of appellant in this case was merely
cumulative in nature, a disregard of which would not affect at all the
testimonies of Nelson and Ceribo regarding the same point.  And so with the alleged contradiction between
the statement of Ceribo before the PC on September 12, 1956, and his subsequent affidavit prepared
by his counsel on April 16, 1957.  It is true that in the one (Exh. H) Ceribo
had inculpated Estrada, while in the other (Exh. 16) he had exonerated him; but
Ceribo explained that the contents of the latter are false.  He declared that when the said document was
taken to him inside the PC stockade, it was already prepared.  His counsel had manifested to him that it was
necessary for his acquittal, for which reason he signed it without first
reading its contents.  We believe this
explanation of the witness is sufficient, for We find no reason for his counsel
to prepare the latter affidavit when We consider the fact that Ceribo had long
been discharged from the information before it was prepared.  And as
the trial court had aptly observed, the said affidavit was no longer
necessary for the acquittal of the witness. 
Add to this suspicious character of Exh. 16 the unshaken testimony of
the witness that its contents are false and the fact that he had affirmed the
truth of his other statement not only be­fore the highest officers of the Army,
but also before the Chief Executive of the land, that the value of Exhibit 16
soon fades into nothingness.

But appellant charges that the trial court had abused its
discretion when it denied the defense the right to call back witness Ceribo
who, it is claimed, was then ready to retract
his previous testimony for the prosecution, and the testify for the
defense.  This, it is pointed out, was a
denial of herein appellant’s right to due process.  We cannot agree.  Section 14, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
explicitly provides that the court may grant or withhold leave to recall a witness, in its discretion, as the
interests of justice may require; and We believe that it was the better part of
discretion and caution on the part of the trial court to have denied as it did,
the request of the de­fense to recall Ceribo. 
The record is loaded with circumstances tending to show insidious
attempts, too ob­vious to be overlooked, to tamper with the witnesses for the
prosecution.  Under the circumstances, to
allow such a procedure would
only encourage the perversion of truth and make a mockery of court proceedings.

A certain alleged statement attributed to Lt. Alcantara, is here
also relied upon by appellant to show that, he (appellant) did not really
suggest Elvira Ta­ñada Principe to be the kidnap victim.  It appears that soon after Elvira was taken
to the mountains, she was asked by Lt. Alcantara if she was the wife of
Teodosio Principe.  Elvira answered the
question in the negative.  Thereafter,
Lt. Alcantara asked her if she was the wife of Reynaldo Principe, and this time
she answered in the affirmative.  We
believe not much may be made out of this circumstance, for it merely shows that
Lt. Alcantara was not even sure if the woman they had kidnapped was the wife of
Teodosio or Reynaldo.  It does not
necessarily follow, however, that herein appellant did not really make the
suggestion to kidnap Elvira, in the light of positive evidence that he did
so.  Neither may We sustain the charge
that the prosecution in this case was guilty of suppression of evidence, on
account alone of the circumstance that the highest authorities of the Army had
failed to produce Lt. Alcantara in court, as desired by the defense. 
It is true that the prosecutor in this case was a captain in the Army,
but it cannot be denied that he had prosecuted this case not as such officer,
but as a special prosecutor under the Depart­ment of Justice; nor do We find
any evidence of record that will
justify an inference that he had prevailed upon his superior officers in the
Armed Forces not to obey the orders of the trial court to produce Lt. Al­cantara. 
Herein appellant claims that Lt. Alcantara, was already in the
custody of the Army at the time.  Col.
Yen testified, however, that the Lt. Alcantara in the service of the PC was at
the time “in the field of operation and his whereabouts was unknown.”
We see no reason then why the blame should be attributed to the prosecution.

With the foregoing
conclusions, We have to sustain the finding of the court below that herein
appellant is guilty of the crime imputed to him in this case.  There could be no question that appellant had
knowledge of the criminal intention of Lt. Alcantara and his men to kidnap
somebody from Gumaca for ransom.  It
seems, however, that they had no definite person in mind in the beginning.  So much so, that they had to call for herein
appellant, a councilor and prominent citizen of the place, for his cooperation
in the matter of selecting and pointing to the prospective victim.  Appellant suggested the Principes as the most suitable
object of their criminal design, pinpointing Elvira, wife of one of the Principes, as the ideal victim, with the expla­nation that the Principe family would not meet with any difficulty in
producing the ransom money for her release. 
Lt. Alcantara and his men became convinced of appellant’s suggestion and
reasoning, and then and there they decided to kidnap Elvira Tañada
Principe.  The Huk leader told appellant
that he (appellant) would be in­formed accordingly when the kidnapping was to
be effect­ed and the latter answered that Lt. Alcantara could count upon him
all the time.  Appellant knew, and must
have realized the frightful consequences of being kid­napped by the Huks.  He was not unaware of previous other
kidnappings of prominent citizens in the Bondoc Peninsula – the kidnapping
of Ex-Mayor Yumul of Lopez, of Wee King of Catanauan, of the Barrettos of
Gumaca, and of De Leon of Catanauan –
which had invariably re­sulted in either the loss of honor of the victims, payment
of huge amounts for ransom by their families, or the horrible deaths of the
victims.  With that knowledge,
nevertheless, herein appellant agreed and conspired with Lt. Alcantara and his
men in the kidnapping of Elvira TanadaPrincipe.who, was not only detained by
Lt. Alcantara and his men in the mountains for eighteen
(18) days, but was only released after the payment of a P50,00.00 ransom.  These circumstances, to the mind of the
Court, altogether show that appellant
enjoyed such ascendancy of the mind over that of Lt. Alcantara to the extent
that his suggestion was the efficacious inducement which led the latter and his
men to proceed with the criminal design, thus making herein appellant a
principal by inducement.  However, for
failure to obtain the necessary number of votes to affirm the death sentence
in the decision appealed from, the penalty next lower should be imposed.

WHEREFORE, appellant is hereby sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.  With this modification, decision is affirmed
by way of ordering appellant to pay the civil liability
and the costs.  On equitable considerations,
no costs in this instance.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez,
Castro, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., on official leave
of absence.

---

^[1]
TSN, pp. 939, 941.

^[2]
TSN, p. 378.

^[3]
TSN, p. 965.

^[4]
TSN, p. 379.

^[5]
TSN, p. 379.

^[6]
TSN, pp. 380, 586, 587, 588.

^[7]
TSN, p. 380.

^[8]
TSN, Id.

^[9]
TSN, Id.

^[10]
TSN, pp. 383, 581, 582.

^[11]
TSN, pp. 278, 280, 281, 287,
302, 303, 307, 308.

^[12]
TSN, p. 288.

^[13]
TSN, p. 290.

^[14]
TSN, p. 291.

^[15]
TSN, p. 430.