THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LOPE CUNANAN, ALIAS PERLA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. RAYMUNDO ABESAMIS, ALIAS RADING, ALIAS TEDDY, ALIAS MIKE, ALIAS MUNDING…

Appeal by defendant Raymundo Abesamis, alias Hading, from a decision
of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, convicting him, as well as Lope
Cunanan, alias Commander Perla, and Ruperto Esquillo, alias
Sergio, alias Alex, who have not appealed, of the crime of kidnapping
with ransom and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment, with the accessory
penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify, jointly and severally, Dr. and Mrs.
Zosimo Fernandez in the sum of P40,000.00, and to pay the proportionate part of
the costs.

The lower court found, and it is not disputed, that, on April 23, 1953, at
about 7:30 p.m., Dorotea Fernandez, wife of Dr. Zosimo Fernandez, their daughter
Fe and the family driver, Buenaventura Fernandez, were forcibly taken from their
house in Pagsanjan, Laguna, and brought to the mountains by a band of about
seventeen (17) armed men headed by Lope Cunanan, who was addressed by his men as
“Capt. Mendoza”. While in the hideout of the malefactors, Mrs. Fernandez copied,
by order of Cunanan, a letter prepared by him and addresed to Dr. Fernandez,
demanding P80,000.00 for the release of Dorotea, Fe and Buenaventura Fernandez.
Three (3) days later, the captives were taken further into the mountain
fastness, where they stayed for thirteen (13) days. On different occasions,
during this period, Cunanan bade Mrs. Fernandez to write the letters Exhibits C,
D and E, urging her husband to expedite the raising of the ransom money.
Moreover, Cunanan, as “Capt. Mendoza”, exchanged correspondence with Dr.
Fernandez with respect to the amount of the ransom money, which was eventually
reduced to P40,000.00. Upon payment thereof early on May 8, 1953, the captives
were released.

Although positively identified by Mrs. Fernandez and her driver Buenaventura
Fernandez (Fe Fernandez did not take the witness stand, for she was abroad at
the time of the hearing), as one of the armed men who guarded the complainants
during the entire period of their captivity, Abesamis maintains that the lower
court erred in convicting him of the crime charged. More specifically, appellant
contests the sufficiency oi the evidence of conspiracy between him and Cunanan
to commit said offense, upon the following grounds: (1) the only direct evidence
thereon is an extrajudicial confession of Cunanan, which is inadmissible in
evidence against appellant; (2) there is no direct evidence that appellant was
one of those who forcibly took the Fernandeces from their house in Eagsanjan in
the evening of April 23, 1953; and (3) it has not been proven that appellant
knew that the captives had been kidnapped for purposes of ransom. In connection
with the last argument, it is urged that, as a member of the corps of security
guards of the Hukbalahap, to which appellant, like Cunanan, as “Capt. Mendoza”,
admittedly belonged, it was the duty of the former to guard the bases of
operation of said organization, where, presumably, the captives were kept before
their release, and that, accordingly, the fact he guarded them does not
necessarily show that he was a privy to the commission of the crime charged.

The record shows, however, that upon being dragged from their house in
Pagsanjan, on April 23, 1953, at about 7:30 p.m., the Fernandeces and their
captors, after crossing a river, went afoot to the mountains; that after passing
by steep trails, at about midnight, they reached a place in the mountains where
there was an improvised hut among coconut trees; that, placed in said hut, the
Fernandezes were heavily guarded, not only during that evening, but, also,
during the entire period of their captivity; and that among those who so guarded
them was appellant Raymundo Abesamis and his co-defendant Ruperto Esquillo, who
did not appeal. Although, there is no direct evidence as to the identity of each
and everyone of the members of the band who went to the house of Dr. and Mrs.
Fernandez, in the evening of April 23, 1953, except as regards Lope Cunanan,
there is nothing to indicate that there had been a change, either of the band,
or in the composition- thereof, at any time during the period above mentioned.
Indeed, the record suggests that there had been no change in the composition of
the group, from the midnight of April 23 to the early morning of April 24, when
Mrs. Fernandez and Buenaventura Fernandez first recognized Abesamis among their
captors. Moreover, there is evidence to the effect that the same group of men
guarded the captives from April 24 to May 8, 1953. Again, it has been clearly
established that the kidnapping was made by Huks under the command of “Capt.
Mendoza”, or Lope Cunanan, and Abesamis admittedly belonged to the Huk
detachment under such command. In fact, there is no question that the
Fernandeces were kidnapped for purposes of ransom, in which, accordingly, each
one of the conspirators had a special interest. Hence, none of them would have
normally allowed the intervention of a stranger, not only because he could
jeopardize the success of their plan, as well as their own security, but, also,
because he would thereby be placed in a position to expect and demand a share in
the ransom money, and, consequently, reduce the share therein of the original
conspirators.

The incriminatory statements—to the effect that Abesamis was a member of the
band that took the Fernandezes from their house in the evening of April 23,
1953, an4 that he was a party to the conspiracy to commit the crime
charged—found in Cunanan’s extrajudicial statement, merely corroborate the
testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and is indicative of their
veracity.

Anent appellant’s last argument, it appears that upon receipt of information
to the effect that an understanding had been reached with Dr. Fernandez, on May
7, 1953, there was a general rejoicing in the second hideout of the malefactors;
that at about 4:00 p.m., the latter proceeded with their captives from said
hideout to their first hideout, which they reached at about 8:00 p.m.; that, the
next day, a man came and said: “they are ready, they are there”, referring
evidently to the bearers of the ransom money; that at about 2:00 p.m., the
malefactors brought the captives down the mountain to a brook, in a slope where
several friends of the Fernandeces were waiting with a bundle wrapped in a
plastic cloth; that this bundle was delivered to Mrs. Fernandez, who, following
instructions said to have been given by Dr. Fernandez, opened the bundle and
counted the money contained therein; that after verifying that it amounted to
P40,000.00 Mrs. Fernandez delivered the money to Cunanan who took P10,000.00 for
himself, gave P6,000.00 to his “lieutenant”, and divided the balance among the
other members of his detachment—including Abesamis; and that after a
brief wait, the captives were released.

These events, which took place in the presence of Abesamis—particularly, the
general rejoicing and rather vociferous expressions of happiness made upon
receipt of notice of the agreement reached with Dr. Fernandez, in the course of
which the captives were assured that they would soon be released and that
they would only have to wait for the ransom money, and the share thereof
actually taken by Abesamis—considered in relation to the other facts
adverted to above, leave no room for doubt that Abesamis was in conspiracy with
Cunanan and the other members of his detachment in the commission of the crime
charged.

Although the same was perpetrated at night time, with the assistance of armed
men, constituting a band, the maximum of the penalty prescribed by the law
(Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 18 [the
crime charged was committed before the approval of Republic Act No. 1084, on
June 15, 1954]) for said offense—namely death—cannot be imposed upon appellant
herein, for lack of the number of votes necessary therefor, owing to the fact
that the head of the tand, Lope Cunanan, had been sentenced to life
imprisonment.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
appellant Raymundo Abesamis. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, Gutterrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.