THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DATU OMBRA KIRAM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ESMAEL KUDANDING AND MAGANDINGAN GUIAMAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Accused of kidnapping with murder in the CFI of Cotabato, together with six other accused who have not yet
been brought to trial, Esmael Kudanding
and Magandingan Guiaman,
were convicted of the crime charged, with the qualifying circumstance of
treachery (alevosia) and the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime, use of motor vehicle, and isolated place, and
thereby sentenced to death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the sum of P6,000.00 and to pay the Costs, the
trial court, however, recommending commutation to reclusion perpetua, pursuant to the provisions of the Mindanao
and Sulu Code, the two above-named accused being non-christians.

The death sentence is now before this Court for compulsory
review.

The evidence of the prosecution established the following facts,
as recited in the People’s Brief:

“In the evening of September
9, 1966 at about 9:00 o’clock,
Lourdes Trinidad saw and recognized from the window Cabalona
Salik, Abonawas Abdul and Tongan Dimatingcal standing by
the gate of their family residence calling for her brother the late Eduardo Ong.  Forthwith,
Eduardo Ong came down from the house and met
the three persons.  After talking for a
short while, Cabalona Salik,
Abonawas Abdul and Tongan Dimatingcal
left together with Eduardo Ong.  (pp. 11, 12, 13, 28, t.s.n.,
May 17, 1967).

“The following morning when the members of the Ong family discovered that Eduardo Ong
was not able to come home, the father, Dr. Jose Ong,
reported his son’s disappearance to the police of Cotabato City
as well as the P.C.  (p. 4, t.s.n., Id.).

“Meanwhile, Cabalona Salik, Abonawas Abdul, Tongan Dimatingcal and the group of persons who used to frequent
the store of Lourdes Trinidad failed to appear. 
After three days of futile search by the Ongs,
Cabalona Salik came and
broke the news that Eduardo Ong was somewhere in Tumbao or  Marques
and that he was being detained for ransom. 
Cabalona Salik
volunteered to procure the release of Eduardo Ong
provided that the Ongs pay the sum of P10,000.00 (pp.
17, 18, id.).  Cabalona
Salik even mentioned the names of the supposed
kidnappers, namely Datu Ombra
Kiram, Tongan Dimatingcal, Esmael Kudanding,  Magandingan Guiaman, Bayan Agar, Saidon and Tanaka Kudanding (pp. 18, 19, id.).  Cabalona Salik promised to procure the release of Eduardo Ong on the condition that he will not be implicated (p. 23,
t.s.n., id.) and, so long as the P.C. do not
interfere.  (p. 24, t.s.n.,
id.).  The mother of Eduardo Ong, however, promised to give the amount as long as
Eduardo Ong should first be returned.  The mother of Eduardo Ong
just the same gave Cabalona Salik
P50.00 for gasoline expenses to be incurred in connection with the search and
release of her son Eduardo Ong Receipts, Exhibits L,
L-1, and L-2; pp. 36, 37, t.s.n., id.).

“Meanwhile, in the morning of September 10, 1966, dead body was found lying in the
bushes along the Linek Awang
airport road, which is eight (8) kilometers more or less from Cotabato City.  Among the local farmers who saw the dead body
were Alfredo Pantorilla and Juliano
Pantorilla, father and son, who are workers of the Broce Plantation at Tamontaka, Dinaig, Cotabato.  The dead body was lying face up dressed in yellow pink polo shirt and black
pants and beside it were a pair of slippers. 
The eyebrow and the nose appears to be wounded.  The body was already in rigor mortis.  (pp.
5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, t.s.n., May 19, 1967; pp. 21, 22, 23, t.s.n., June 14,
1967).

“The body was buried in a grave dug 50 meters away from the place where it was first
discovered.  (pp. 8, 9, 10, t.s.n., May 19,
1967); In the night of September
11, 1966, a jeep load of persons were seen by Alfredo Pantorilla
going towards the grave. (p. 28, t.s.n., June 14,
1967).  The following day, September
12, 1966, the grave
was found empty.  (p. 31, t.s.n., id.).

“Alfredo Pantorilla and Julian Pantorilla were brought to the P.C. where they were
interrogated.  They were shown the
picture of Eduardo Ong, Exhibit K, and they readily
recognized the picture as being
that of the corpse they saw at the Linek Awang
Airport road.  (pp. 12, 13, t.s.n.,
May 19, 1967; pp. 25, 26, t.s.n., June 14,
1967).

“Meanwhile the accused Magandingan Guiaman and his co-accused Esmael
Kudanding were apprehended by the P.C. on September 14, 1966.  They were investigated at the P.C. headquarters
where both signed their confession.  (pp.
42, 43, t.s.n., May 17, 1967).  Magandingan Guiman executed his
extra judicial confession, Exhibits A, A-1 to A-3 (pp. 44, 55, 56, t.s.n., id.) and so did Esmael
Kudanding who likewise executed Exhibit B, B-1 to B-3
(pp. 54, 56, t.s.n., id.).  After the written confessions of Magandingan Guiaman and Esmael Kudanding (disclosing in
vivid details their conspiracy) were prepared, Magandingan
Guiaman and Esmael Kudanding were brought by the P.C. soldiers to the Office
of the Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Cotabato,
Branch I.  Francisco Alalan,
Deputy Clerk of Court interpreted the affidavit of Magandingan
Guiaman from English to Maguindanao
(pp. 6, 7, 8, t.s.n., May 18, 1967) and there­after, Magandingan
Guiaman affixed his thumb-mark on Exh.
A, A-1 to A-3 after he was first asked by the Clerk of Court if the contents of the affidavit were true and correct
(pp. 9, 10, 11, 12, t.s.n., id.).  Magandingan Guiaman swore to the truth of the contents of his affidavit
before the Clerk of Court, Atty. Benjamin Munasque, (id.).  Benjamin
Pascual, official court interpreter and
special deputy clerk of court interpreted to Esmael Kudanding the latter’s affidavit, Exhibits B, B-1 to B-3,
from English to Maguindanao (pp. 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, t.s.n., id.). 
Esmael Kudanding
acknowledged the truth and correctness of his written statement, affixed his thumbmark and swore before the Clerk of Court Atty.
Benjamin Munasque (pp. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, t.s.n., id.).

“From the Office of the Clerk of Court, Magandingan
Guiaman and Esmael Kudanding were brought to the Cotabato
Provincial Hospital where Dr. Wilfredo Tanyag, a resident
physician physically examined Magandingan Guiaman and Esmael Kudanding (p. 5, t.s.n., June 14,
1967).  According to the medical
certificates (Exh. C and D) which Dr. Tanyag executed, there was no sign of violence whatsoever
on the bodies of Magandingan Guiaman
and Esmael Kudanding.  (pp. 9, 10, t.s,n.,
id.).

“From the hospital, the P.C. soldiers brought Magandingan Guiaman and Esmael Kudanding to the scene of
the crime at Linek Airport
Road at Tamontaka for
re-enactment.  The two accused pinpointed
the place where the body of Eduardo Ong was
buried.  Then the two accused re-enacted
the killing of Eduardo Ong including the manner of as
to how the body of Eduardo Ong was buried.  (Pictures, Exhibits E, E-1, E-2, E-3; F, F-1,
F-2, F-3; G, G-1, G-2, G-3; H; I; J; pp. 65, 66, 67, t.s.n.,
May 17, 1967).  According to the two
accused, the body of Eduardo Ong was buried at
approximately 30 meters away from where Eduardo Ong
was allegedly shot (id.).” (Appellee’s
Brief, pages 2-6).

To the foregoing narration should be added that from the
extra-judicial confessions of appellants, a jeep was used in the kidnapping (Exhs. A, A-1 to A-3 and B, B-1 to B-3).^[1]

The foregoing facts are as testified to, among others, by Lourdes
Trinidad, particularly on her having seen in the evening of record, from the window
of her father’s house, where she was living together with her brother, the
victim Eduardo Ong, Cabalona
Salik, Abonawas Abdul and
Tongan Dimatingcal, standing by the gate of their family residence.  She recognized them well because they used to
frequent her store, but after her brother had disappeared after being brought
away by the two on the same night aforementioned, the said group stopped going
to the store.  Through Lourdes’
testimony, it was also proven that Cabalona Salik volunteered to secure the release of Eduardo Ong for a ransom of P10,000.00, naming the persons who were
detaining Eduardo Ong.  After three days of futile search, he was
given P50.00 for gasoline expenses by Eduardo’s mother.

The finding of the dead body of the victim on September 10, 1966 along the Linek Awang
Airport road, an uninhabited place
near bushes, was testified to by two farmers, Juliano
and Alfredo Pantorilla, father and son, respectively,
who identified the dead body as that of Eduardo Ong
by means of a picture of the latter. 
With the wounds found on the body, there could be no doubt that his death was brought about by foul
means.  The corpus delicti was thus proven through the
testimonies of the state witnesses, corpus delicti
being the fact of the commission of the crime–the death caused by a
criminal act.

The aforementioned witnesses had no motive to testify falsely against the appellants.  It is significant to note that even the
victim’s sister, Lourdes, did not
point to the appellants herein with a directly accusing finger.  She named three other persons as the ones who
spirited away her brother, never
more to come home alive.  If the
prosecution were bent merely to have appellants convicted at all cost, as only
the two of them were present to face trial, Lourdes should have been made to
point to appellants directly as the
ones who called for her brother to come down his house, and led him away to his death.  The candor of Lourdes as a witness is thus amply demonstrated
which makes her worthy of credence.

The other two state witnesses, father and son, Juliano and Alfredo Pantorilla,
are simple farmers who absolutely had no reason to testify having seen the dead body of the deceased unless they
had really seen and identified the corpse as that of Eduardo Ong.  They were aware
that their testimony was being used against the appellants, who were just two
of the eight accused, all Muslims generally feared for their unquenchable
thirst for vengeance.  Only their sense
of truth could have made them hold to perform a civic public duty, but with so
much risk as intimated.

The discrepancies pointed to by appellants in the testimony of
the aforenamed witnesses, could not detract from the
veracity of the essential fact testified to, which is none other than their
having seen the body of a person
whom they identified to be that of the victim through a picture shown to
them.  Their credibility remains solid,
unimpaired by inconsistencies that are patently attributable only to the
frailty of memory, not to a wilful desire to commit
falsehood.  This usually happens in
recalling dates that do not impress themselves deeply for one reason or another, to which the
inconsistencies allegedly committed refer.

With such independent and very credible proof of the corpus delicti, as has just been shown, it cannot be
success­fully contended that the extra-judicial confessions of ap­pellants would not suffice to form
the basis of their con­viction.  The rule is well-settled that an
extra-judicial confession, if corroborated by proof of the corpus delicti, independent of the confession itself
would be sufficient basis for conviction.^[2]

The only question that remains to be answered is whether the
extra-judicial confessions of the appellants are admis­sible in evidence with
their claim of having been tortured into making them.  In the first place, by the abundance of
details which could not have been set forth in the confes­sions except by the declarants themselves, so evident on the face of the
confessions, particularly the mention of the names of their confederates who
went into hiding, including the individual role and distinct participation
performed by each, the voluntariness of the confession is
vividly manifested.^[3]

Secondly, the facts proven by evidence outside of the sworn
statements of appellants tally with those found in the said statements.  Precautions were taken to insure against the
possibility of successful repudiation of the statements by appellants.  They were asked to sign their statements only
after it was made certain that they knew and understood what they were swearing
to, and the con­sequences of their act of signing the affidavits under
oath.  Thus, proper translation of the
questions and answers in said affidavits was made by reliable officials, the Deputy Clerk of Court and the Court
Interpreter, for appellants Guiaman and Kudanding, respectively. 
Familiar with the last refuge usually taken to by accused with
extra-judicial confession by repudiating such confession, in desperate attempt
to escape conviction, these court officials must have done their job
conscientiously to maintain the integrity of the confessions and insure their
admissibility.

Finally, to foreclose any claim of torture or of being placed
under pressure in the taking of the statement, appellants were brought to a
physician for an examination of their bodies for any external sign of
violence.  The doctor certified to having
found no signs of injury or
violence.  Certainly, the bare allegation
of maltreatment against the investigators mouthed by the appellants them­selves,
without corroboration of any sort, cannot over­come the presumed regularity of
the performance of official duty, as well as the presumed voluntariness
of the confession itself.^[4]

From the foregoing discussion, We find no merit in appellants’
assignments of error which the court a quo allegedly
committed (1) in admitting their extra-judicial confessions; (2) in not
considering the discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses for the
prosecution; and (3) in holding that evidence of corpus delicti has been established by the
prosecution by means of evidence inde­pendent of their extra-judicial
confessions.

However, the court a quo should not have considered nighttime as an aggravating
circumstance, the same being already absorbed by treachery which was alleged as
the qualifying circumstance of murder.^[5]
Nevertheless, with two remaining aggravating circumstances:  (1) use of motor vehicle, and (2) isolated
place, with no mitigating
circumstance to offset them, and pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code which directs the imposition of the maximum of the penalty for the more
serious offense when the crime committed is a complex crime, the imposition of the death penalty is
inevitable.

Accordingly, We are constrained to affirm, as We do hereby
affirm, the judgment of conviction. 
However, in accordance with the recommendation contained therein We
hereby impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua
on each of herein appellants, instead of death as meted but by the trial court,
pursuant to the provisions of the Mindanao and Sulu Code, appellants herein being Moslems or
non-Christians.  Likewise, as recommended
by the Solicitor General, the indemnity of P6,000.00 is hereby raised to P12,090.00.^[6]
With the modifications as are above in­dicated, the decision appealed from is affirmed in all other respects,
with costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (C.J.), Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos,
Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., took no part.

^[1]
Pages 6-13, Record of Exhibits.

^[2]
People vs. Sabenorio, et al., L-26704, June
29, 1979; People vs. De la Cruz, 85 SCRA 205; People vs. Peña, 80 SCRA 589;
People vs. Narciso, 23 SCRA 844; People vs. Manobo, 18
SCRA 30.

^[3]
People vs. Ty Sui
Wong, 83 SCRA 125; People. vs.
Ventura, 80 SCRA 515; People vs. Navasca,
76 SCRA 70; People vs. Paras, 56 SCRA 248.

^[4]
People vs. Sumayo y Bersebal,
70 SCRA 488; Thomson Shirts Factory (Aaron Go & Co.) vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 67 SCRA 1; Cornejo vs.
Secretary of Justice, 57 SCRA 663; Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU
vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 60 SCRA 450; People vs. La Caste, 37 SCRA 767; Mahilum, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA 482;
People vs. Pereto, 21 SCRA 1469; People vs.
Dorado, 30 SCRA 53.

^[5]
People vs. Tizon, 66 SCRA 372; People vs.
Echaluce, 66 SCRA 221; People vs. Enot, 6 SCRA 325.

^[6]
People vs. Pantoja, G. R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1978, 25 SCRA 468.