G.R. No. L-4287. December 29, 1953
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GING SAM ALIAS TABA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
PER CURIAM:
Arong, Coling Doe and Benito Doe were charged in the Court of First
Instance of Manila with the crime of kidnapping with murder in that,
conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, with
intent to extort ransom, they kidnapped in an automobile one Chan Teng
and using treachery inflicted upon him serious physical injuries which
directly caused his death.
Of the thirteen (13) defendants,
five (5) have not yet been apprehended at the time the case was tried
on the merits, namely: Ildefonso Santos y Barrios alias Ponching, Ong Giok Siu, Claro de la Cruz alias Arong, Nicolas Cruz alias Coling Doe, and Benito Doe alias
Agapito Doe. The eight (8) available were tried and found guilty of the
crime charged and were sentenced each to suffer the capital punishment
of death. They were further sentenced to indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P5,000 and to pay
their proportionate share of the costs. From this decision, the
convicts interposed the present appeal.
Evidence for the Prosecution
Chan Teng, the victim in the crime before us, was a Chinese businessman
of Ozamis City who used to come to Manila to attend to some business
transactions. Sometime in May, 1950, he came once more to Manila with
his wife and six minor children. He used to stay in the house of his
parents-in-law on Elcano Street but because the house could not
accommodate all the members of his family, he and his wife lodged at
night at the Peace Hotel on Soler Street. Chan Teng used to transact
business at the Kian Liong Exchange at 705 Teodora Alonzo under the
management of his uncle Ong Pan where he used to withdraw money with
which to make purchases for his store at Ozamis City.
On May
25, 1950, at about 9 o’clock at night, after coming from the office of
his uncle where he obtained checks, money orders and some cash and
while on his way to his hotel, he was accosted on the corner of Teodora
Alonso and Soler streets by two men, Gregorio Gonzales and Cenon Reyes,
telling him that they were taking him to Camp Crame on a charge of
communistic activities. Gonzales posed as an honorary sergeant of the
Manila Police Department and an agent of the Interior Department and
Reyes as an honorary patrolman of Pasay City. Chan Teng was pushed into
a waiting car then driven by Apolinario Pelaez whose services had been
hired by Arturo Basa without informing him of the purpose for which the
car would be used. Chan Teng was taken to an isolated house then
occupied by Benito Camaya situated on M. de la Cruz street, Pasay City,
where he was detained, his hands tied to a cot and his feet chained
together. During his captivity in that house, he was fed by Camaya with
coca-cola and bread. In the night of the next day, Chan Teng, making
use of a trick, tried to escape but failed. He was caught and beaten up
badly by Ildefonso Santos, one of his guards, who with the help of a
companion. Federico Badeo, subdued him and brought him back to the
house where he was tied once more to the cot.
Early in the
morning of May 28, Ging Sam arrived, who, with the help of Claro de la
Cruz and Nicolas Cruz, carried Chang Teng, his feet still chained, and
placed him inside the luggage compartment of a packard car. With Ging
Sam at the wheel, Chan Teng was taken to a house at No. 13 Anak Ng
Bayan Street, San Francisco del Monte, which Ging Sam sought to rent
the day before. This house was under the care of one Co Che. On the day
previous, Ging Sam, accompanied by Yao Ling and another unidentified
person, approached Co Che trying to rent the house, and while Co Che
was at first reluctant to agree, he was later persuaded to leave the
house upon being given an advance payment of P50 and upon being assured
that the owner had agreed to lease the premises. When on the next day
Co Che found out that Ging Sam did not tell the truth, he returned to
the house that same afternoon to find that there was no occupant. He
noticed however that the galvanized iron sheet covering the opening of
the air raid shelter had been removed. Suspicious that there was
something wrong, Co Che reported the matter to the owner. The two
notified the police, and when the place was investigated, the dead body
of Chan Teng was found dumped into the air raid shelter. The body
showed signs of violence and appears to have been dead for about 24
hours. The post mortem report states that the body had some
ligature marks and many contused abrasions on the arms and legs, which
were still chained, and hematoma on both sides of the occipital region
and a wound on the head. The victim died of intracranial and meningeal
hemorrhage.
Early in the morning of May 27, a note in
Chinese characters was found at the door of the Kian Liong Exchange
Office. The note was written and signed by Chan Teng and was addressed
to Ong Pan, Chan’s uncle and manager of the exchange. The note revealed
that Chan was kidnapped by some Filipinos who were holding him for
ransom in the amount of P50,000. As the amount was too much for him,
Chan asked his uncle to help him. A second note, unsigned and dated May
29, was received by Ong Pan through registered special delivery in the
afternoon of the same day. The note merely contained a notice that Chan
Teng could be found in the air raid shelter of the house of Ko Bang
Kiat at San Francisco del Monte.
The disappearance of Chan
Teng was first brought to the attention of the Manila Police by his
wife in the morning of May 26, who was alarmed when he failed to return
home the night before. This notification coupled with the note received
by Ong Pan informing him of the kidnapping, which was brought to the
attention of the police, made the latter take steps to track down the
persons responsible for the kidnapping. The first man apprehended was
Apolinario Pelaez, the driver of the car used in carrying away the
victim. At first he refused to talk fearing reprisal on the part of the
Filipino members of the snatch gang, but when these were arrested he
finally gave in and revealed the truth to the police. The following is
the gist of his testimony: He was a driver of the “Flying ‘A'” PU
service with a garage on Georgia Street, Malate. Arturo Basa, with whom
Pelaez lived in the same house during the enemy occupation, was a
driver of the “Flying ‘P’ ” PU service which used the garage of the
“Flying ‘A’ “. On May 25, 1950, at about 6 o’clock in the evening,
Pelaez was riding in a jeep when he saw Arturo Basa in another jeep on
Taft Avenue. Basa motioned Pelaez to stop and then approached him to
ask him if he could use his (Pelaez) car that night as the car assigned
to him (Basa) was then out of order. Basa added that he would pay him
on the “boundarihan” basis, that is, P9.00 for the whole night. At
first Pelaez was reluctant to yield his car because he expected to earn
more that night on account of the presence of many American sailors who
had just gone ashore, but he finally agreed on condition that he be
allowed to drive the car himself. To this Basa agreed and both drove
toward Sta. Cruz to pick up Basa’s passengers. When they reached the
corner of Teodora Alonso and Soler streets, Basa alighted telling
Pelaez that he will see his passengers. After Basa had gone, Nicolas
Cruz, with whom Pelaez had once lived in a house at M. de la Cruz
Street, Pasay, came along and asked Pelaez why he was there. Pelaez
answered that he was in the company of Arturo Basa who had just
alighted to see his passengers. Nicolas then asked Pelaez if Basa told
him who his passengers were and when he answered in the negative,
Nicolas said that they were the ones who talked to Basa and that Basa
would be given P100. At this juncture Basa returned and upon seeing
Nicolas, Basa told him that as his car had not arrived he brought
Pelaez along. Nicolas then left. While Pelaez and Basa were waiting in
the car, Gregorio Gonzales and Cenon Reyes passed by. Pelaez asked Basa
why those two were there and Basa answered saying that they were the
companions of Ging Sam who would take a rich businessman to the
province. After Reyes and Gonzales had left, Basa left also, leaving
behind Pelaez alone in the jeep. Pelaez then fell asleep. Later he was
awakened by someone who told him to drive ahead. After driving some
distance along Soler street, he was told to stop where Gonzales and
Reyes were standing with a Chinaman between them. Pelaez did so and
open the rear door of his car. Then Gonzales was heard telling the
Chinese to get into the car, but he refused and tried to escape,
whereupon Reyes and Gonzales held him by both arms and forced him
inside the car intimating that they were agents of the law. It was then
past 10 o’clock in the evening. Before reaching the corner of Azcarraga
and Rizal Avenue, Gonzales told the Chinaman that they were taking him
to the Bilibid compound because he was a communist. To this the
Chinaman protested saying that he was not. But when they reached the
corner of Azcarraga and Avenida Rizal, Gonzales told Pelaez to proceed
to Sta. Cruz bridge and then toward Dewey Boulevard. While in this
place, when Gonzales noticed that the Chinaman was feeling uneasy, he
cocked his pistol and warned him not to make any noise if he wanted to
live. After passing several small streets in Pasay they finally reached
an isolated place at M. de la Cruz, and stopped at the end of the
street where there was a basketball court. They parked in front of the
house of Benito Camaya where Claro de la Cruz, Nicolas Cruz and
Federico Badeo approached them. Then Gonzales and Reyes alighted and
brought down the Chinese. When Pelaez was about to leave, Claro de la
Cruz, who was an acquaintance of Pelaez, told him to come back the
following day for his pay. Pelaez did not pay much attention to what
Claro had said, and drove his car back to M. de la Cruz, and upon
turning to another street he saw Arturo Basa who apparently was going
to the place where he dropped the three passengers. Basa asked Pelaez
if he was paid. When he replied in the negative, Basa told him to wait
for Ging Sam who will be the one to pay him. Pelaez, however, did not
care to wait any longer but before leaving, he warned Basa that if he
happens to be involved he will be the first person he would implicate.
To this Basa answered that he should not worry because Ging Sam is
influential with the police. It was 11 o’clock at night when Pelaez
left the place. The following day, May 26, at 6 o’clock in the morning,
Pelaez went back to M. de la Cruz to look for Basa and ask for money
and upon going to the store where they used to meet, Pelaez saw Claro,
Nicolas and Ging Sam on the stairway of Nicolas house. Claro approached
Pelaez and asked him what he wanted. Upon learning that Pelaez wanted
money, Claro went to Ging Sam and asked P15 to be given to Pelaez, who
left after receiving the money. The next day, May 27, Basa went to
Pelaez house and gave him another P15. Four nights later, while Pelaez
was driving his car along Taft Avenue, he was hailed by some persons in
a jeep following him. They were Ging Sam and Nicolas who motioned to
him to stop his car near the curve. Pelaez did so and Nicolas and Ging
Sam alighted from the jeep and boarded Pelaez’ car. He then drove to M.
de la Cruz street. At this juncture Ging Sam advised Pelaez that if he
should get arrested he should merely tell the police that he did not
know his passengers and, in any event, he (Ging Sam) will take care of
him. Pelaez told Ging Sam that if he is caught he could not help but
tell the truth, to which Ging Sam said that it was up to him.
Benito Camaya explained what took place in his house during the two
days Chan Teng had been detained there until he was taken away by Ging
Sam. He said that he knew Ging Sam, Lee Tao and Yao Ling because they
live in that house for six months in 1948 who at that time were engaged
in the business of making “bucayo”. On May 25, 1950, at nighttime,
while he was in front of the house, a car arrived with three
passengers. They were Cenon Reyes and Gregorio Gonzales with a Chinaman
whom he identified as Chan Teng. He knew both Reyes and Gonzales
because they live on the same street. As Camaya approached the car,
Nicolas Cruz and Claro de la Cruz, who were also known to him, came
along and requested him to allow the Chinaman to stay in the house for
a day or two, to which he consented. While the three were thus talking
to each other, two persons, Federico Badeo and Ildefonso Santos, also
known to Camaya, passed by. As Camaya agreed to their request Nicolas
and Claro brought the Chinese into the house. They asked Camaya if he
had a cot, to which he answered affirmatively and gave them the cot. At
this moment Cenon Reyes left leaving Nicolas, Claro and Gonzales who
engaged in a conversation in the room. When Camaya approached them,
Claro told him to leave the room and watch for any man who may come.
After a while, the three came out of the room and Nicolas told Camaya
to guard the Chinaman. To this remark Camaya reacted adversely saying
that he could not possibly do what he was told to do because he had no
money and besides his wife was still sick. In reply Nicolas told Camaya
not to worry because they would get money from Ging Sam. The Chinaman,
who was identified by Camaya as Chan Teng, was made to lie on the cot,
his hands were tied to the sides of the cot, and his legs chained
together. Claro, Nicolas and Gonzales departed but warned Camaya that
his life would be in danger if he would allow the Chinaman to escape.
Left alone, Camaya asked Chan Teng why he was brought there to which
Chan Teng answered saying that he was being held for a ransom of
P50.000 which he can not give. Camaya watched over the Chinaman the
whole night and because he was so afraid of the kidnappers he was not
able to sleep even for a minute. The following morning, May 26, Camaya
waited for Ging Sam and his companions but they did not show up. So he
went to a nearby sari-sari store operated by one Yawa to ask him to
inform his “compadre” Ging Sam that he was already tired of guarding
their captive. He also bought coffee, bread and sugar and a bottle of
coca-cola with which to feed Chan Teng. At about 8:30 o’clock a. m. of
that day, Camaya saw Federico Badeo pass by and requested him to tell
his companions to relieve him (Camaya) in order that he may get some
sleep. Federico told Camaya to go to sleep as he would watch the
Chinaman in the meantime. Chan Teng called Camaya to the room where he
was confined and after having asked for and drunk water, Chan Teng
requested Camaya to untie one of his hands so that he could drive away
the mosquitoes biting him. Camaya heeded the request and went to sleep.
At about midnight Camaya was awakened by Federico to tell him that the
Chinaman escaped. Camaya lighted a candle and went to look for the
Chinaman in various parts of the house but failed. Then he went to the
balcony and from there saw Ildefonso Santos below the house beating the
Chinaman. Chan Teng was able to untie his hands and leave the room but
his legs were still chained. Camaya advised Federico and Ildefonso to
bring the Chinaman upstairs to avoid scandal in the neighborhood.
Ildefonso heeded the suggestion and the Chinaman was brought back into
the room and he was once more tied to the cot, this time more tightly
so that he may not escape again. Observing that he had a wound on the
right temple, Camaya asked the Chinaman who did it and the Chinaman
answered that he was struck with a gun. The following day, May 27,
Camaya went again to the store of Yawa to tell him that he could no
longer keep on guarding the captive. Yawa answered saying that he had
already talked to Ging Sam and that he would come any minute that
morning. At about 5:30 o’clock the following morning, Ging Sam in fact
showed up driving a packard car accompanied by Nicolas and Claro de la
Cruz. The three went up the house and they untied the hands of Chan
Teng. As he was too weak to walk, Ging Sam asked his two companions to
carry him and place him in the luggage compartment of the car. This was
done and Ging Sam drove away accompanied by Claro and Nicolas.
As to what happened in house No. 13, Anak Bayan Street, San Francisco
del Monte, where Chan Teng was taken in the morning of May 28, 1950, no
one was able to give a clear account except Co Che the caretaker of the
house, who also testified for the prosecution. The substance of his
testimony is as follows: He was the caretaker of that house which
belonged to one Ko Bang Kiat. On May 27, 1950, at about 5 o’clock in
the afternoon, Ging Sam came with Yao Ling and another companion to
rent it. Co Che told Ging Sam to see the owner of the house. At about 6
o’clock the next morning, May 28, Ging Sam came back accompanied again
by Yao Ling and another person and told Co Che that he had already
talked with the owner who agreed to let him occupy the house. As Ging
Sam could not produce any note from the owner, Co Che suggested that he
get one which Ging Sam promised to do. Sometime later, Ging Sam came
back still without the note but this time he gave the excuse that he
was too busy to get one and insisted that Co Che accept the sum of P50
as advance payment telling him to get a receipt from the owner. On this
occasion Ging Sam came in a car, which was preceded by a jeep. Ging Sam
told Co Che to vacate the house immediately as he was soon going to
occupy it. As Co Che was leaving, he saw Yao Ling open the door of the
ground floor of the house and the car was driven inside by Ging Sam.
When Co Che returned the following day, May 29, to see if everything
was in order, he found out that the persons who rented the house were
gone. Co Che inspected the house and noticed that the galvanized iron
sheet covering the air raid shelter had been removed. This aroused the
suspicion of Co Che and immediately notified the owner of the house of
what had happened. The two reported the matter to the police which
resulted in the discovery of the dead body of Chan Teng dumped into the
air raid shelter of the house.
The evidence for the
prosecution also shows that after the discovery of the dead body of
Chan Teng the persons who took part in the kidnapping disappeared from
their respective residences in Manila. Arturo Basa fled to Sorsogon,
Sorsogon and when he saw that his arrest was imminent, he surrendered
to the authorities on June 16, 1950. Ging Sam and Lee Tao fled to an
isolated place in the municipality of Faire, Cagayan where they were
arrested on June 6, 1950. Yao Ling went to hide in an isolated place in
barrio Iba, Silang, Cavite, where he was arrested on June 16, 1950. And
Dee Chee Ping was found in the house of a relative in Caloocan on June
9, 1950. When arrested, he said that he went to the house of his
relative because the police were looking for him and pointed to Ong
Giok Siu as the mastermind. It appears that after the kidnapping was
discovered, he, with another Chinese, went to seek refuge in the house
of one Go Siong Li in Bataan on May 29, 1950, but Go Siong Li refused
to admit them because of his suspicion that they had something to do
with the kidnapping of Chan Teng. In fact, he admitted to Go Siong Li
that he participated in the kidnapping. He also admitted to Ong Pan
that he was the one who gave instructions to kidnap Chan Teng.
The prosecution also presented as evidence the written confessions
signed by some of the accused in the course of the investigation
conducted by the police following their arrest. These written
confessions and the persons who had subscribed to them are: Dee Chee
Ping, Exhibit P; Lee Tao, Exhibit Q; Yao Ling, Exhibit R; Gregorio
Gonzales, Exhibits S and S-2; Federico Badeo, Exhibit T, and Cenon
Reyes, Exhibits II and JJ. Ging Sam was also subjected to an
investigation but refused to give any written confession. He, however,
testified in his own defense at the trial of the case. The introduction
of these written confessions was vigorously objected to by the defense
on the ground that they were extorted thru third degree methods, but
the objection was overruled.
Evidence for the Defense
It should be noted that the defendants do not entirely deny the
participation imputed to them by the witnesses for the prosecution in
the commission of the crime. Most of them admit the commission of the
acts imputed to them but only up to certain extent. When it comes to
the portion of the evidence of the prosecution which establishes their
complicity in the commission of the crime they either completely deny
such complicity or offer an explanation which would give the impression
that they were ignorant of the acts they were called upon to perform,
or the purpose for which they were utilized, thus making it appear that
they were unwilling tools of the real criminals. And, as will be noted,
the real criminals pointed to are not precisely those who had been
apprehended but those who are still at large and their whereabouts
unknown. These criminals are Ong Giok Siu, Nicolas Cruz and Claro de la
Cruz. This is clearly reflected in the testimony given by defendants
which for purposes of this decision will be presently discussed.
Arturo Basa testified that on May 25, 1950, as his car was being used
by another and he had to take some passengers that day, he asked
Apolinario Pelaez if he could take his passengers; that Nicolas Cruz
had previously seen him at his house in Pasay telling him (Basa) that
he would need his car to take some friends to a birthday party; that
Pelaez asked him how much he would pay for the use of his car, to which
Basa replied that it would be under the “boundarihan” system, which
means that the car would be hired from 5:00 p. m. to 7:00 a. m. for
P15; that Pelaez readily agreed to take his passengers and they
proceeded to Soler and T. Alonso streets; that upon reaching that
place, Basa saw Nicolas and told him that as his car did not arrive he
brought along the car of Pelaez; that Pelaez asked Nicolas how long he
would use the car and Nicolas answered that he would use it for a short
time; that at about 6:30 in the evening, Basa told Nicolas and Pelaez
that he would leave them as he was going to a movie and so he left
them. Basa denied having gone back to join Pelaez in the car, or having
gone to meet Pelaez in Pasay after the latter had gone there to take
some passengers. Basa also testified that he was sent by his
grandmother to Bicol on May 25, 1950 to get some letters of
administration from a lawyer; that while he was in Sorsogon he read in
the newspapers that he was wanted by the police; and that when his
uncle Geronimo Habelito arrived there with Lt. Morales he surrendered
to them and was taken to Manila.
Gregorio Gonzales and Cenon
Reyes practically testified to the same facts though they differed in
some minor details. They said that they were invited to a party by
Claro de la Cruz and Nicolas Cruz and so in the evening of May 25,
1950, they rode in a taxi to Soler and Gandara streets; that upon
arriving Claro and Nicolas left to look allegedly for the Chinese who
was giving the party: that when Claro and Nicolas returned they told
Gonzales and Reyes to go ahead to the corner of Soler and T. Alonzo
streets and wait there for them; that this they did and after waiting
for sometime a Chinese named Yawa with two other Chinese came and asked
them why they were there, and they answered telling them the purpose of
their presence; that Yawa told them that he would look for Claro and
Nicolas but returned without them and instead Yawa told Gonzales that
Claro and Nicolas had already left; that, as one of his Chinese
companions wanted to buy morphine in the house of Benito Camaya, Yawa
suggested that, if they, Gonzales and Reyes, are ready to go home, they
could go with them so that they could show the house of Camaya; that
Gonzales and Reyes agreed to Yawa’s suggestion and after a while the
car driven by Apolinario Pelaez arrived; that Gonzales and Reyes
boarded the car with Yawa and his two Chinese companions and drove to
the house of Benito Camaya on M. de la Cruz St., Pasay; that upon
arriving Nicolas and Claro appeared with Benito Camaya, and when Reyes
and Gonzales asked Claro and Nicolas why they had left them behind in
Manila without leaving a word the latter simply said that they would
just carry out their party some other time; that thereafter Reyes and
Gonzales left and went home.
Ging Sam, alias Taba, gave the
following explanation: Early in the morning of May 28, 1950, his
employee, Lee Tao, woke him up telling him that Ong Giok Siu wanted to
hire his car. Ging Sam informed Ong Giok Siu that his Packard car has
already been turned over by him to the California Auto Exchange for
sale. Upon insistence of Ong Giok Siu, who said that he had promised
some friends to take them to Antipolo, Ging Sam was prevailed upon to
get the car from the exchange. To this effect Ging Sam talked to the
watchman of the exchange who at first was reluctant to give the car but
Ging Sam finally got the car thru the help of one Chua who was
influential with the owner of the exchange. Ging Sam upon indication of
Ong Giok Siu drove the car to M. de la Cruz Street of Pasay to pick up
a friend. They stopped the car in front of the store of Yawa, a
“compadre” of Ging Sam, where Ong Giok Siu alighted and talked with
Yawa. After a while Ong Giok Siu came and instructed Ging Sam to drive
ahead until they reached the house of Benito Camaya. Ong Giok Siu went
up the house and shortly thereafter came down accompanied by three
persons. They all boarded the car and upon Ong Giok Siu’s directions
Ging Sam drove to Manila. Upon reaching the rotonda of España extension
Ong Giok Siu said that he was mistaken in going that way for he meant
to go to San Francisco del Monte to pick up a companion. While on their
way to the latter place, the engine of the car developed trouble so
Ging Sam went to a gasoline station to get water, but upon his return
he discovered that one of his tires was flat. He told his companions
that he would leave them for a while to get another tire. Ging Sam went
to Magdalena street in a taxi to fetch one Chua Sua and as he could not
be found, he thought of Yao Ling who used to drive Ging Sam’s car. Upon
Yao Ling’s suggestion, they went to the house of one “Putol” also on
Magdalena street from whom Ging Sam got a spare tire while Yao Ling
obtained some tools from Chua. Thereafter Ging Sam hired a jeep and the
two drove back to España street. Upon their arrival Ging Sam saw that
only Ong Giok Siu was there who informed Ging Sam that their three
companions had gone ahead and shall wait for them at San Franciscc del
Monte. After changing the tire and repairing the engine of the car,
they prepared to resume their trip, Ging Sam driving the car while Yao
Ling driving the jeep. Ong Giok Siu boarded the jeep and told Ging Sam
to proceed, but as Ging Sam said that he did not know where they were
going Ong Giok Siu told Ging Sam to just follow the jeep. When they
reached a certain house at San Francisco del Monte, the jeep parked in
front of the house and the car in front of the jeep. Ong Giok Siu
talked with Co Che, caretaker of the house and after their conversation
Ging Sam evinced a desire to leave but Ong Giok Siu said that he would
still need his car and suggested that he leave the car with him and use
the jeep in going home. This arrangement was satisfactory and Ging Sam
boarded the jeep with Yao Ling who, after taking Ging Sam home,
returned the jeep to its owner. It was then 11 o’clock in the morning.
At 3 o’clock in the afternoon Ong Giok Siu returned the Packard car to
Ging Sam.
Yao Ling’s testimony is substantially similar to that of Ging Sam as regards his participation as narrated by Ging Sam.
Lee Tao admitted having been an employee of Ging Sam since January,
1950. He corroborated Ging Sam’s statement that he woke him up in the
morning of May 28 to inform him that Ong Giok Siu wanted to hire his
car.
Federico Badeo denied Benito Camaya’s statement that he
acted as guard of Chan Teng and helped in his recapture when he tried
to escape. He admitted having known Claro de la Cruz, Nicolas Cruz,
Ildefonso Santos, Reyes, Gonzales and Ging Sam.
Dee Chee
Ping denied having had any participation in the kidnapping but admitted
that he was an employee of the Kian Liong Exchange, that he lived in
the same place where the exchange is located, and that he came to know
Chan Teng because he used to transact business in that exchange.
Although Dee disclaimed being a friend of Ong Giok Siu he admitted
having dined often with him. On May 28, 1950, the two had dinner
together and during their conversation Ong Giok Siu disclosed to him
that it was he and some Filipino companions who kidnapped Chan Teng.
Findings
It can readily be seen from the foregoing exposition of the evidence
both of the prosecution and of the defense that while defendants in
their explanatory statements admitted their participation in the events
that took place relative to the kidnapping of Chan Teng they have
however denied the commission of the acts imputed to them by the
prosecution which may render them guilty as confederates or
co-conspirators in the perpetration of the act. As already stated
elsewhere, when it comes to those portions of the evidence which
conclusively establish their participation in the kidnapping they
either completely deny such participation or gave an explanation which
would exculpate them or would make it appear that they were unwilling
tools of the real criminals. In other words, they set up a defense
which may be characterized as confession and avoidance, confession as
to acts which on the surface would give the impression that they acted
merely as participants without knowing the purpose of the act they were
called upon to perform, and avoidance as to matters which would tend to
show that they were part and parcel of a plan to kidnap Chan Teng for
the purpose of obtaining a ransom. The question therefore before us is
whether the version given by the prosecution should be given credence
in its entirety or should be restricted or qualified in the manner
depicted by the defense through the testimony of the
defendants-appellants. The determination of this question much depends
upon the credibility of the witnesses which, under well-known
precedents in this jurisdiction, is largely addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court.
We have noticed that the
trial court has made a careful study of the evidence and has well
weighed its credibility and consistency and has taken a painstaking
effort in analyzing the particular part each of the defendants had had
in the commission of the crime. We have also examined carefully the
arguments of counsel for the defense in their efforts to find flaws and
weak points in the findings and conclusions drawn by the trial court in
its decision, but, while the efforts they had made in defense of their
clients are praiseworthy and should be commended, we have not been able
to find any fact or circumstance of weight and influence which can be
said has been overlooked by the trial court as to warrant a reversal of
the findings it has reached, with the only exception we will hereafter
point out. We are of the opinion that these findings are correct and
should not be disturbed even if we disregard the extrajudicial
confessions subscribed by the defendants whose admissions are now
vigorously opposed on the ground that they had been extorted thru third
degree methods.
The lower court, as above pointed out, gave
credence to the witnesses for the prosecution more than to those of the
defense and we believe that it did not err in doing so for after all a
substantial portion of the testimony of the former has been confirmed
to be true by the defendants themselves who, for obvious reasons,
denied or varied those parts which directly implicated them. Moreover,
no adequate motive has been shown why the witnesses for the prosecution
should testify falsely against the defendants in order to foist upon
them a crime so serious as the one charged. With regard to witness Co
Che, caretaker of the house where Chan Teng was found dead, and witness
Lucas Matulac, a neighbor, no improper motive has been advanced that
might have induced them to testify against the defendants. The motives
imputed to Benito Camaya by some of the defendants are so flimsy that
they can hardly be considered. As to Apolinario Pelaez, the driver of
the car used in the kidnapping, while he may have a criminal record,
and to a certain extent an accomplice of the act, it cannot be said
that his testimony is wholly unworthy because, in the first place, his
car was merely hired by Arturo Basa who by the way did not inform him
the purpose for which it would be used, and, in the second place, a
substantial portion of his testimony appears corroborated by the
defendants themselves. As to Go Siong Li, to whom Dee Chee Ping
admitted his participation in the kidnapping and murder of Chan Teng,
the defense tried to discredit him on the flimsy pretext that he got
peeved because Dee Chee Ping insisted in collecting from him a debt of
P100. There is therefore no plausible motive for the lower court to
brush aside the testimony of the important witnesses for the
prosecution.
On the other hand, the respective versions
given by the defendants in an attempt to exculpate themselves are too
absurd and unnatural to deserve credence. Thus, Cetion Reyes and
Gregorio Gonzales testified that they were merely invited by Nicolas
Cruz and Claro de la Cruz to a birthday party in a downtown restaurant
in the evening of May 25, without knowing that their plan was to kidnap
Chan Teng. If Nicolas and Claro had that plan there is no sense for
them to invite Reyes and Gonzales to be told later that the blowout
would not be carried out. In fact, according to Gonzales and Reyes,
their going to Soler street was futile because Claro and Nicolas left
them without even informing them that the party was called off.
Besides, if it is true that there was that plan of kidnapping Chan Teng
it is foolish for Nicolas and Claro to invite persons who are strangers
to the plan thus exposing them to the risk of being discovered. The
fact is that there was no such blowout and Reyes and Gonzales knew well
why they had been invited to that place for it is a fact clearly proven
that they lent themselves to be used as willing tools because of their
connection with the police offices of Manila and Pasay City. Their
participation proved useful because by making use of their police
badges they succeeded in impressing upon the victim that he was being
taken to Camp Crame in connection with his alleged communistic
activities.
The explanation of Ging Sam that he had no
knowledge of the kidnapping and that his car was simply hired by Ong
Giok Siu who wanted to take some passengers to Antipolo, was not given
credence by the lower court because it conflicts with the conduct he
has observed later which in itself constitutes its best refutation.
Thus, it appears that it was he who gave the money to Arturo Basa with
which the latter paid Apolinario Pelaez for the use of his car. It was
he who directed that Chan Teng be wrapped up and placed in the luggage
compartment of his car and who drove the car toward the house at No. 13
Anak Ng Bayan of San Francisco del Monte which he, with Yao Ling and
another person, had visited and sought to rent the day before. It was
also he who paid Co Che the sum of P50 as partial payment of the rent
with the assurance that the owner had agreed to lease the house. And,
finally, after the kidnapping of Chan Teng, and while Pelaez was
driving his car along Taft Avenue, it was he who hailed Pelaez and
advised him to tell the police if he should get arrested that he did
not know his passengers promising that if he would be in trouble he
would help him. These facts cannot but argue against the claim of Ging
Sam that his participation in the whole mess was without any knowledge
of the criminal plan. And if there is still any doubt as to his alleged
participation this is dispelled by his sudden flight with his family to
a far away barrio in the municipality of Faire, Cagayan immediately
after the discovery of the dead body of Chan Teng abandoning his store
at Singalong, Manila.
The claim of Arturo Basa that he was
not a party to the conspiracy to kidnap Chan Teng because he merely
endorsed his passengers to his co-driver Apolinario Pelaez and that
after Basa had accompanied Pelaez to meet his passengers at the
designated place, Basa left and went to a movie and did nothing more
leading to the commission of the crime, cannot also be entertained. It
appears that, after Pelaez had driven Chan Teng, held by Gonzales and
Reyes, to the house of Benito Camaya, Pelaez met Arturo Basa who asked
him if he had already been paid. Basa told Pelaez to wait for Ging Sam
who would pay him. The next day Pelaez went back to look for Basa and
it was then that, thru the intervention of Basa, Pelaez was paid the
sum of P15.00. Then, one day later, Basa went to Pelaez house and gave
him another P15, and when Pelaez warned Basa that if he would get
involved it was Basa he would point to, Basa assured him not to worry
because Ging Sam was influential with the police. It is not therefore
true that Basa did not have any part in the conspiracy to kidnap Chan
Teng.
The participation of Yao Ling also appears
established. This is apparent in at least the testimony of two
witnesses, Co Che and Lucas Matulac. These witnesses pointed to him as
the companion of Ging Sam when the latter brought Chan Teng to the
house in San Francisco del Monte and as the person who opened the door
of the ground floor where the car was placed. The explanation given by
Yao Ling of his presence to the effect that he was merely invited by
Ging Sam to help him fix the tire of his car cannot be given much
importance because, if true, no valid reason is seen why after having
fixed the tire and repaired the engine of the car of Ging Sam somewhere
on España extension, he did not return home and instead he accompanied
Ging Sam and otherwise followed his directions in going to the fatal
house. At that time Chan Teng was already inside the luggage
compartment of the car of Ging Sam and it is not reasonable to suppose
that all that time he was never informed of the presence of Chan Teng
in that compartment.
With regard to Dee Chee Ping, it is
true that none of the principal witnesses for the prosecution has
actually indicated his participation in the kidnapping and murder of
Chan Teng, but there is enough evidence to show that he is one of those
who planned the act in view of his knowledge of the movements of the
victim being an employee of the Kian Liong Exchange. This is shown from
the testimony of Ong Pan, uncle of the deceased, who said that at about
11:30 p.m. of May 30, 1950, Dee Chee Ping came to his house requesting
protection because two Filipino thugs wanted to do him harm but that he
refused to give him shelter because of his involvement in the
kidnapping. This is corroborated by Francisco Chua who accompanied Dee
Chee Ping to the house of Ong Pan and overheard their conversation.
Chua even said that on that occasion Dee Chee Ping confessed as the one
who gave instructions to kidnap Chan Teng. On the other hand, Go Siong
Li testified that on May 29, 1950, Dee Chee Ping went to his house in
Bataan accompanied by a Chinaman and a Filipino to beg him to be
allowed to stay in the house for two weeks or more, but when Dee Chee
Ping informed Go Siong Li that the purpose of his trip was because he
was involved in the conspiracy to kidnap Chan Teng, the latter refused
to give him shelter. It is for this reason that Dee Chee Ping was
arrested in the house of a relative in Caloocan on June 9, 1950.
It cannot also be denied that Federico Badeo has had a direct
participation in the kidnapping. Benito Camaya, star witness for the
prosecution, was most emphatic in pointing to him as one of those who
guarded Chan Teng during his detention in his house on the night of May
26, 1950. The incident that took place that night was somewhat
pathetic. When because of the entreaty of Chan Teng, Camaya untied one
of his hands so that he could drive away the mosquitoes biting him,
Chan Teng was able to escape but it was Badeo and one Ponching who
caught him and subdued him and brought him back to the same room where
he was confined. Badeo therefor could not ignore that Chan Teng was a
captive and the purpose why he was being detained. Moreover, he knew
well his co-accused, principally Reyes, Gonzales, Nicolas, Claro and
one Ponching which shows that he is one of their companions. His
imputation that Camaya’s grudge is due to the latter’s desire to have
illicit relations with Badeo’s wife to which Badeo stubbornly refused
is too flimsy to be believed.
But we entertain serious doubt
as to the involvement of Lee Tao in the case. We have examined
carefully the evidence in an effort to justify his complicity and
conviction but we have failed to find any evidence of merit that may
warrant such a conclusion. None of the witnesses for the prosecution
has ever linked his name or pointed to him as one of those who took
part in the kidnapping in one way or another even if the lower court
has mentioned him as the companion of Ging Sam on the occasion Chan
Teng was taken from Pasay to San Francisco del Monte as the culminating
act of the kidnapping. This finding of the court does not find any
support in the evidence other than perhaps the written confession of
Lee Tao himself where he admitted having acted as a guard of Chan Teng
during his confinement in Camaya’s house. But this confession was
repudiated, and while this repudiation was denied by Detective
Morquerza, it is a dangerous precedent to pin the liability of an
accused convicted of capital punishment on such a weak and unconclusive
evidence. Of course this accused was also implicated by his co-accused
in their extrajudicial confessions but we doubt if this could be of
much help considering that these confessions had been repudiated and
there are clear indications that they had been extorted through the
application of third degree. The circumstance that this accused
accompanied Ging Sam in his flight to Faire, Cagayan, is not of
importance on the face of the fact that he was merely an employee of
Ging Sam. He might have gone with his master due merely to his bidding
which he cannot refuse.
Conspiracy and Conclusion
The remaining question to be determined is: Is there conspiracy in this
case? According to our law, “A conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.” (Article 8, Revised Penal Code.) This law
apparently requires that for conspiracy to exist there must be an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony. But this requirement
does not actually mean that the agreement must be in writing or be
expressly manifested it being sufficient that it be implied from the
acts of the conspirators tending to show their common design to commit
the crime. Previous acquaintance among the conspirators is not even
necessary, nor is it required that each takes part in every act, or
that all shall know the exact part to be performed by the others in the
execution of conspiracy. The only thing required is that there be a
common purpose or design to commit the act, the means employed or the
parts executed by each being immaterial. (12 C. J., 544-545.) In this
respect, we find correct the following findings of the lower court:
“Dee
Chee Ping, clerk in the Kian Liong Exchange of Ong Pan at 705 Teodora
Alonso, was the one who communicated to his co-defendants Ging Sam and
Ong Giok Siu the movements of their victim Chan Teng; the time he
usually goes to the Exchange office and the time he leaves and retires
to his hotel on Soler street. Ging Sam alias Taba directed the
execution of the plan and employed Cenon Reyes and Gregorio Gonzales,
“honorary” policemen who picked up Chan Teng on a pretext that he was
to be taken to a Police Station for an alleged investigation on
communistic activities. Ging Sam was also the one who selected the
isolated house of Benito Camaya at M. de la Cruz street Pasay, where he
(Ging Sam) and his co-accused Lee Tao and Yao Ling lived for eight
months in 1948. Federico Badeo alias Pedring with the help of
Benito Camaya was employed as guard to watch captive Chan Teng in the
said house; and Yao Ling together with Ging Sam, Ong Giok Siu and Lee
Tao, Arong and Coling brought Chan Teng to another isolated place at
No. 13 Anak Ng Bayan, San Francisco del Monte, where his dead body was
found by the police. Ging Sam in company with Lee Tao and Yao Ling was
also the one who rented the house at San Francisco del Monte on May
27th, the day before Chan Teng was taken there.“The
individual acts of the said defendants clearly point to a single
criminal intent, one performing one part of the act and the others
another part of the same act, so as to complete it with a view to the
attaining the object which they are pursuing, to wit; to kidnap Chan
Teng for purposes of ransom, to carry him to a secluded place in order
to better secure his consent through fear to pay the ransom, and kill
him with certain sense of impunity if the captive refuse to accede to
their demand. All of these individual acts are so synchronized that
leaves no room for any doubt that there was conspiracy and connivance
among all the defendants.‘In conspiracy no formal
agreement between the parties to do the act charged is necessary. In is
sufficient that the minds of the parties meet understandingly
so as to bring about an intelligent and deliberate agreement to do the
acts and to commit the offense charged, although such agreement is not
manifested by any formal words. A mutual implied understanding is sufficient, so far as the combination or confederacy is concerned, to constitute the offense.‘Previous acquaintance is unnecessary, and it is not essential that
each conspirator shall take part in every act, or that he shall know
the exact part to be performed by the other, conspirators in the
execution of the act of conspiracy. Conspiracy implies concert of design
and not participation in every detail of execution * * * If the object
of the combination is unlawful, the means contemplated to effect such
object is immaterial, * * * and it is not even necessary that the means
should have been agreed on, or that any time should have been set for
the accomplishment of the design.’ (12 C. J., pages 544-545) (Italics
supplied).‘The general rule is well settled that, where
several parties conspire or combine together to commit any unlawful
act, each is criminally responsible for the acts of his associates or
confederates committed in furtherance of any prosecution of the common
design for which they combine. In contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all.
* * * It is immaterial, as affecting the question of co-equal
responsibility, that one or more were not actually present at the
consummation of the preconcerted design.’ (12 C. J. pages 577-578)
(Italics supplied).“The conspiracy among the defendants
did not only exist before and during the commission of the crime. Even
during the trial of the case such conspiracy and understanding were
very apparent. The testimonies of defendants Ging Sam, Dee Chee Ping,
Lee Tao, Cenon Reyes and Gregorio Gonzales pointing to and laying the
blame on, their co-accused Ong Giok Siu, Coling and Arong, who are
still at large, clearly reveal their understanding and concert of mind
to incriminate those whose whereabouts could no longer be located and
to exculpate themselves.”
The crime was
committed with aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation,
nighttime, use of motor vehicle, taking advantage, of public position
on the part of Gregorio Gonzales and Cenon Reyes, and of having
received a price on the part of said Gonzales and Reyes, Arturo Basa
and Federico Badeo, which can hardly be offset by the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender on the part of Arturo Basa and
Federico Badeo.
The penalty provided for the crime charged
is death. This is the penalty that should apply to the defendants as a
consequence of the conspiracy with which the act has been committed.
However, the court, considering the gravity of the penalty, took pains
in determining the degree and nature of the participation had by each
and every defendant in the execution of the crime, and having in mind
this point of view, some members of the court expressed the opinion
that the capital punishment would be too harsh if applied to all and
that the ends of justice would be served if life imprisonment is
imposed as to some of them. We are of the opinion that of those who
have been actually apprehended the most guilty of the crime are Ging
Sam, Gregorio Gonzales and Cenon Reyes. As to the rest we believe that
life imprisonment would be a commensurate penalty.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with regard to Ging
Sam, Gregorio Gonzales and Cenon Reyes, and is modified by imposing the
penalty of reclusion perpetua upon the rest to wit: Arturo
Basa, Dee Chee Ping, Yao Ling, and Federico Badeo, with the
proportionate share of the costs. In all other respects, the judgment
is affirmed. Lee Tao is acquitted with costs de oficio.
Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.