THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AURELIO SORIANO, ALIAS BERIONG, AND RAFAEL GARCIA, ALIAS FELING, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Charged with kidnapping, found guilty and sentenced to suffer reclusion
perpetua, the accesories of the law, to indemnify jointly and severally the
heirs of the victims Juan Saraos and Leocadio de la Cruz in the amount of P6,000
each and to pay the costs proportionately, Aurelio Soriano and Rafael Garcia
have appealed.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that on 8 May 1950, at about 8:00
o’clock in the evening, Aurelio Soriano and Rafael Garcia carrying a carbine and
pistol, respectively, went to the house of, Juan alias Tomas Saraos in
the barrio of Raniag, municipality of Santiago, province of Isabela. Aurelio
Soriano called and told him to come down and afterwards did the same thing to
Leocadio de la Cruz. Aurelio Soriano and Rafael Garcia brought Juan Saraos and
Leocadio de la Cruz to the school building at Bugallon, another barrio of
Santiago, and sent, for Atanacio Caliboso, the assistant barrio lieutenant, the
lieutenant being absent then, to guard Saraos and De la Cruz. Caliboso asked for
help and went to call rural policeman Lope Cadavis. Soriano and Garcia told
Caliboso that they were G-2 agents or investigators or operatives of the
Constabulary. After entrusting the custody of Juan Saraos and Leocadio de la
Cruz to Caliboso and Cadavis and telling them that they would return the
following morning to pick them up, Aurelio Soriano and Rafael Garcia departed.
Early in the following morning the two returned and took Juan Saraos and
Leocadio de la Cruz from the school building and led them toward the provincial
road where they boarded a weapons carrier that happened to pass by. Since then
they have not returned to their respective houses and their whereabouts is
unknown.

The appellant’s defense is alibi. Their evidence’ shtfws that on 23 March
1950 they were committed to the municipal jail of Echague upon a charge of
robbery filed by one Fermin Goyeche and that they were brought to the PGF camp
at Echague on 12 May of the same year.

The witnesses who swore to having seen the appellants take Juan Saraos and
Leocadio de la Cruz from their respective houses in the evening of 8 May 1950,
bring them to the school house at Bugallon, and early the following morning take
them from the school building and lead them to the provincial road where they
boarded a weapons carrier that happened to pass by are Antonio Saraos, a son of
Juan; Atanacio Caliboso, assistant barrio lieutenant of Bugallon; Lope Cadavis,
a rural policeman; Gregoria de la Torre, wife of Leocadio; and Pacita de la
Cruz, daughter of the latter. Jf we were to rely on their testimony, there seems
to be no alternative but to affirm the judgment appealed from, notwithstanding
the fact that the documentary evidence presented by the defense shows that on 23
March 1950 the appellants, together with Hilarion Acosta and Alfonso Galang,
were committed to the municipal jail of Echague upon a charge of robbery and
that only on 12 May they were turned over or remitted to the PGF camp at
Echague, because there is evidence that the appellants despite their confinement
in the municipal jail of Echague were seen several times, especially on 29
March, in the streets and market of Santiago and on 7 May they appeared at the
office of the Chief of Police of Santiago inquiring about Huk-suspects and for
the house of David Gabuyo whom they arrested. Their going out of jail was due to
the fact that they were engaged by the army to detect and report on crimes then
rampant in Santiago and adjoining municipalities, if not in the whole province
of Isabela, several persons having disappeared with their whereabouts unknown
and the kidnappers of Geronimo Enriquez alias Sunny Farmer having been
duly punished by the courts (People vs. Dionisio Francisco, et al.,
G.R. No. L-5568, 31 May 1954). There is also an alleged admission made by
Aurelio Soriano to Estefanio Novisteros in the house of Agaton Tacatacu that he
was responsible for the disappearance of Juan Saraos and Leocadio de la Cruz.

Nevertheless, the prosecution failed to prove the motive that impelled the
appellants to commit the crime charged against them. For that reason we went
over carefully and weighed the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution.
Antonio Saraos testified that he saw his father for the last time at 8:00
o’clock in the evening of 8 May 1950 in the barrio of Raniag, but in the same
breath he said that he saw his father in the school building in the morning of 9
May 1950. He swore that Soriano alone took his father on 8 May 1950 but later he
said that Soriano and Garcia took his father after having been prompted by the
prodecutor by leading questions objected to by counsel for the defense. He also
said that he met Aurelio Soriano in September 1950 and asked him whether he knew
where his father was and Soriano answered that his father was taken by the
Philippine Ground Force, but answering questions of the Court he said that he
did not ask Soriano but the latter voluntarily informed him that his father was
taken by the Philippine Ground Force. He further said that he saw in the school
building at Bugallon in the morning of 9 May 1950 his father, Leocadio de la
Cruz, Soriano and Garcia; yet in his statement sworn to before the Justice of
the Peace of Santiago (Exhibit 1), he stated that he saw the four persons and a
PGF soldier in a fatigue uniform with a Thompson submachine gun, statement which
he later retracted in open court. In his affidavit Exhibit 1, Antonio Saraos
said that he actually saw Pedro de la Cruz and Atanacio Caliboso at the gate of
the school building. In his testimony, however, he said that he did not see
Pedro de la Cruz, councilor, and Atanacio Caliboso, assistant barrio lieutenant.
Testifying in the case for the kidnapping of Leocadio de la Cruz (case No.
1030), he contradicted both statements by saying that he also saw Atanacio
Caliboso, Lope Cadavis and Pedro de la Cruz in the said school building. He
testified that he reported to the chief of police of Santiago in the morning of
9 May 1950 about the incident. He later admitted that that was not true because
he made the report sometime in April 1951. He also testified that his father was
taken from a place near the stairs of their house and that he followed them up
to the provincial road 40 meters away and that Rafael Garcia was with Aurelio
Soriano. The first part of his testimony must refer to the evening of 8 May when
he claimed his father was taken away and the last two parts to the morning of 9
May when the appellants and their alleged victims left the school building at
Bugallon and boarded a weapons carrier.

Atanacio Caliboso testified that he and rural policeman Lope Cadavis guarded
Juan Saraos and Leocadio de la Cruz. Later on, he stated that not only he and
Lope Cadavis but also Ambrosio Valdes, another rural policeman, guarded
them.

Lope Cadavis testified that he did not sleep during the whole night of 8 May
1950 for fear that the persons entrusted to their custody might escape; but
answering a question put by the prosecutor as to whether he saw the two accused
the following morning of 9 May 1950 in the school building, he said that they
were already there when he woke up. In criminal case No. 1029 he testified that
Atanacio Caliboso, assistant barrio lieutenant, slept in the same place where
Juan Saraos and Leocadio de la Cruz did; but in the other criminal case No. 1030
he testified that Caliboso did not sleep because he was keeping watch on the
policemen lest they would go to sleep. In criminal case No. 1029 Lope Cadavis
testified that he had never been investigated by the police authorities
regarding the alleged kidnapping; but in criminal case No. 1030 he testified
that he had been investigated by the chief of police of Santiago in the same
month that the alleged kidnapping took place.

Gregoria de la Torre, the
wife of Leocadio de la Cruz, testified that on 8 May 1950 when Aurelio Soriano
came to take her husband from their house she was able to recognize him because
of the light of a lamp. In her affidavit before the Justice of the Peace of
Santiago (Exhibit 1), she said she told Colonel Ylagan that she had recognized
Aurelio Soriano by his voice only.

Upon being asked whether there were persons around their house on the night
her father was taken away, Pacita de la Cruz, the daughter of Leocadio de la
Cruz, answered that she did not know. Later on, however, she said that aside
from Aurelio Soriano she also saw Rafael Garcia in the yard of the house when
her mother brought the lamp to the window as her father was going down the
stairs, and later she said that she saw her father and Aurelio Soriano and no
one else. In her affidavit before the Justice of the Peace of Santiago (Exhibit
2), she said that she did not know the name of Soriano’s companion, but during
the trial she said that she knew the name of Rafael Garcia even before 8 May
1950 because her father used to mention that name to her. In another part of her
testimony, she said that when the chief of police of Santiago asked her who took
her father away on 8 May she answered that it was Aurelio Soriano.

Eugenio Batalla, a neighbor of Juan Saraos, testified that in the evening of
8 May she and Juan Saraos were returning from a visit to the house of a dying
person about ten meters away from that of Juan Saraos when they met Aurelio
Soriano. This is contrary to what Antonio Saraos testified that his father was
taken from their houae. Eugenia Batalla never mentioned the presence of Rafael
Garcia. Contrary to both testimonies regarding the place where Juan Saraos was
taken by Soriano, Atanacio Caliboso testified that in a conversation with Juan
Saraos at the school building in Bugallon, the latter told him that he was not
in his house when he was taken by Soriano but in a neighboring house.

As to the taking of Leocadio de la Cruz, Gregoria de la Torre, his wife,
testified that Aurelio Soriano alone took her husband, but Pacita de la Cruz
testified that she saw Rafael Garcia in the yard of the house when she and her
mother were at the window.

Gregoria de la Torre also testified that Aurelio Soriano did not carry
anything with him, but Antonio Saraos testified that Soriano carried a
carbine.

Atanacio Caliboso testified that all of them slept through the night of 8 May
1950 up to the morning of 9 May, but Lope Cadavis testified that neither he nor
Caliboso slept during the whole night. He further testified that he did not go
with Aurelio Soriano, Rafael Garcia, Juan Saraos and Leocadio de la Cruz to the
national highway, but Lope Cadavis testified that Caliboso followed the four and
went as far as the national highway. Subsequently, he testified that he also saw
the four although he stayed ten meters away from them when they were boarding an
army truck.

Antonio Saraos testified that he did not see Pedro de la Cruz and Atanacio
Caliboso that morning referring to 9 May, contrary to the testimony of Pedro de
la Cruz and Atanacio Caliboso who said that they were present that morning of 9
May 1950.

As to when the report on the incident was made to the chief of police of
Santiago, Antonio Saraos testified that he reported it to the chief of police
the following day or on 9 May. Yet in his affidavit before the Justice of the
Peace of Santiago (Exhibit 1), he said that he did not report the kidnapping of
his father to the chief of police, to the PC authorities or to the PGF until
sometime in April 1951 when he reported it to the chief of police of Santiago.
On this point Gregoria de la Torre said that she reported to the chief of
police, of Santiago on the disappearance of her husband after more than one year
or on 28 April 1951. Atanacio Caliboso, the assistant barrio lieutenant of
Bugallon, and Pedro de la Cruz, councilor of the municipality, did not report
the incident to the corresponding authorities until sometime in April 1951 in
spite of the fact that they claimed they had seen the taking of Juan Saraos and
Leocadio de la Cruz by the appellants. Lope Cadavis never reported it.

The testimony of Estefanio Novisteros as to the alleged admission by Aurelio
Soriano that he was responsible for the disappearance of Juan Saraos and
Leocadio de la Cruz is not corroborated by Mariano Palad who was present on that
occasion when the admission was allegedly made. What Mariano Palad testified he
heard Soriano say on that occasion was “If Mariano Palad will not give his palay
to me to be threshed, then he would count 1, 2, 3, 4, then lagud” He
did not mention the disappearance of Juan Saraos and Leocadio de la Cruz.

There is uncontradicted evidence showing that the appellants were agents of
the Constabulary employed to help ferret out rampant criminality and subversive
activities in Isabela which had caused the disappearance and deaths of several
persons, among them of Geronimo Enriquez, alias Sunny Farmer, Ricardo
Corpus, Juanito Magat, Marcelino Corpus and another whose name could not be
ascertained. It also appears that Aurelio Soriano, a native of Raniag, is a
godson of Juan Saraos. There is also unrebutted evidence showing that Juan
Saraos, his son Antonio, Leocadio de la Cruz, Pedro de la Cruz, municipal
councilor and later on candidate for mayor, Atanacio Caliboso and Lope Cadavis,
were suspected of the murder of the persons already mentioned. What possible
incentive could have led, impelled and prompted Aurelio Soi iano to take his
godfather Juan Saraos from his house in the evening of 8 May 1950? To make him
answer for the murder of those persons who had disappeared, the legal process as
provided for by law was sufficient. There was no need for him to resort to
kidnapping. If to the lack of motive to commit the crime charged we add the fact
that before the charge for robbery filed by Fermin Goyeche for which the
appellants and two others were arrested and committed to jail on 23 March 1950,
which was later dismissed, a charge for frustrated murder had been filed against
Rafael Garcia by Dionisio Francisco, who as already stated was held by this
Court together with others guilty of kidnapping Geronimo Enriquez alias
Sunny Farmer, of which charge Rafael Garcia was acquitted; the attempt by Fermin
Goyeche, who together with Dionisio Francisco headed the organization known as
“Santiago Defenders” suspected of being responsible for the disappearance of
persons in Santiago, to make Aurelio Soriano retract what he had stated in his
affidavit when he and Rafael Garcia were in the municipal jail of Echague; and
the fact that failing to have Aurelio Soriano retract the latter was given by
Goyeche a bottle of beer to drink which turned out to contain iodine but which
Aurelio Soriano did not drink because it was taken away from him by “Taliong”
Acosta, we are led to the conclusion that because of contradictions pointed out
committed by the witnesses for the prosecution who claimed they had seen the
taking of Juan Saraos and Leocadio de la Cruz on the evening of 8 May 1950, said
witnesses must not have told the truth.; The appellants had no motive for
kidnapping Juan Saraos and Leocadio de la Cruz. The witnesses for the
prosecution, on the other hand, were interested in removing from their midst the
appellants who because of their activities in behalf of the Army were causing
the “Santiago Defenders” worry lest their nefarious deeds be discovered and the
responsible persons brought to the bar of justice.

The judgment appealed from finding the appellants guilty of kidnapping and
sentencing them to reclusion perpetua is reversed and the appellants
are acquitted, with costs de oficio.

Bengzon, Acting C. J.,
Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and
Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.