PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ABUNDIO ROLUNA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT, CARLOS DAGUING, PATERNO DAGUING, MAMERTO ASMOLO, TEODULFO DAGUING, FEDERICO SIMPRON, BIENVE…

In an Information dated June 26, 1990, eight (8) persons were
charged with the crime of Kidnapping with Murder before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 14, Baybay, Leyte.^[1] They
were Abundio Roluna, Carlos Daguing, Paterno Daguing, Mamerto Asmolo, Teodulfo
Daguing, Federico Simpron, Bienvenido Simpron and Didoc Bongcalos. The Information against them reads:

“That on or about the 27th day of May, 1984, in the
municipality of Baybay, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping with (sic) one another, with the use of
firearms and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously hogtie and kidnap one Anatalio Moronia and take him
away to a place unknown up (to) this time whereat said victim was killed.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Only accused Abundio Roluna was
arrested, tried and convicted. The other seven (7) accused remain at large.

The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses, namely, Conrado
Sombilon and Buenaventura Nogalada, both of whom were residents of barangay
Amguhan, Baybay, Leyte.

CONRADO SOMBILON testified that on May 27, 1984, at around seven o’clock
in the morning, he was on his way to sitio Bungabungan in barangay Amguhan to
attend to the pasture of his carabao. At a distance of thirty (30) meters, he saw his neighbor, Anatalio
Moronia, stopped in his tracks and taken captive by accused Abundio
Roluna. Roluna was then accompanied by
seven (7) other persons, viz: Didoc
Bongcalos, Federico Simpron, Bienvenido Simpron, Teodulfo Daguing, Carlos
Daguing, Mamerto Asmolo and Paterno Daguing. Accused Roluna was armed with an armalite while his companions were
carrying short firearms. Using an abaca
strip, he saw Carlos Daguing tie up the hands of Moronia at the back. Frightened, he did not shout for help and
proceeded on his way. With the
exception of his wife, he did not inform anyone about what he saw that fateful
day.^[2]

BUENAVENTURA NOGALADA corroborated in substance the testimony of
Sombilon. He testified that on said
day, at around nine o’clock in the morning, he came from his farm in barangay
Monterico, Baybay and was on his way home to barangay Amguhan. At a distance of about twenty-five (25)
meters, he saw Moronia walking along a human trail in barangay Amguhan, with
his hands tied by a rope behind his back. Moronia was followed by accused Roluna, Carlos Daguing and five (5)
other persons whom he did not recognize. Accused Roluna was carrying an armalite while Carlos Daguing was armed
with a pistol. Frightened, Nogalada
immediately left the place.^[3]

From that time on, both witnesses testified that Moronia was
never seen or heard from.

At the trial, accused
Roluna hoisted the defense of denial and alibi. Roluna claimed that on May 24, 1984, Danilo Noroño, a cousin of
his wife, went to their house in barangay Amguhan. They were informed by Danilo that Iluminada Cortines y Noroño,
his wife’s grandmother, was bedridden and seriously ill. He and his wife immediately proceeded to
Iluminada’s house in barangay Banahaw, Baybay, Leyte. As soon as they arrived, he gathered some herbal plants for
Iluminada. He boiled these plants and
regularly applied them on Iluminada’s body. He and his wife attended to Iluminada for three (3) weeks. After Iluminada recuperated from her
illness, they returned to their home in barangay Amguhan.^[4] His
testimony was corroborated in substance by his wife, Teresita Roluna and his
grandmother-in-law, Iluminada Cortines de Noroño.

Accused Roluna charged
that prosecution witnesses Sombilon and Nogalada, harboring ill-feelings against him, testified falsely and implicated him in the disappearance of
Anatalio Moronia. He claimed that in
1983, he and Sombilon had a dispute over a cara y cruz game held
in their barangay. Sombilon was then
drunk and he, as chairman of the Kabataang Barangay, tried to pacify Sombilon
but the latter got mad at him. Since
then, they have not talked with each other. Nogalada, on the other hand, also had a grudge against him. In 1982,
they had an altercation during a volleyball game held during the barangay
fiesta.^[5]

After the trial, the
court a quo promulgated
its decision,^[6] the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused Abundio Roluna y Elhig
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Kidnapping With
Murder. As kidnapping (and serious
illegal detention) is penalized with reclusion
perpetua to death and murder with reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death, under Article 48 of the Code, the herein accused
should be punished with the maximum of the more serious crime, hereat the
supreme penalty of death. Considering
that the Constitution of 1987 does not allow the imposition of the death
penalty, however, herein accused is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment or
reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to indemnify
the heirs of Anatalio Moronia the sum of P30,000.00. He is credited with the full period of his detention in
accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, except if he
did not sign an agreement to obey the prison laws, rules and regulations at the
inception.

“SO ORDERED.”

Hence this appeal.

In his brief, accused-appellant charges that the trial court erred in finding him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping with Murder. Accused-appellant points and stresses that
the corpus delicti was not duly proved by the prosecution. He submits, inter
alia, that considering that the body of Anatalio
Moronia was never found, Moronia’s questionable and unexplained absence and
disappearance should not be blamed on him for the alleged victim, in all
probability, may still be alive.

In its brief, the People contends that the fact of Moronia’s
death and the culpability of accused-appellant were sufficiently established by
the evidence. The People relies on the disputable presumption provided under
Section 5 (x) (3), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, viz:

“The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes,
including the division of the estate among the heirs:

x x x

(3)     A person who has been in danger of death
under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four (4) years.”

Undoubtedly, the victim, Moronia, was last seen on that fateful
day of May 27, 1984. During this time,
Moronia, with his hands tied at the back, was accompanied by eight (8) armed
men. Clearly, he was then in danger of
death. Since that day until the date of
the trial (or for a span of six years), Moronia has not been seen or heard
from. The People urges that these
circumstances raised a presumption
that Moronia has been killed by accused-appellant and his companions.

The pivotal issues are: (a) whether or not the circumstances proved by the prosecution are
sufficient to establish the death of Anatalio Moronia, and; (b)
if in the affirmative, whether or not accused-appellants and his
companions could be held liable therefor.

Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or
substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a
crime has been actually committed. As
applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by
someone of the particular crime charged.^[7] The corpus delicti is a compound
fact made up of two (2) things, viz: the existence of a certain act or
result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause
of this act or result.^[8]

Were the two (2) aspects of the corpus delicti proved in
this case?

Insofar as the death of Moronia is concerned, the
fact that he was last seen on May 27, 1984 with his hands tied at the back and
accompanied by eight (8) armed men undoubtedly shows that his life was then in
danger or peril. Coupled with the fact
that Moronia has been absent and unheard from since that time until the trial
of this case (or a total of six years),
a presumption of death was sufficiently raised. This is in consonance with Section 5 (x)(3), Rule 131 of the Rules
of Court, viz:

“The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes,
including the division of the estate among the heirs:

x x x

(3)     A person who has been in danger of death
under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four (4)
years.”

However, the circumstances presented by the prosecution would not
be enough to hold accused-appellant responsible for the death of Moronia.

In the early case of People v. Sasota,^[9]
the Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder although the body
of the victim was not found or recovered. In said case, we ruled that in case of murder or homicide, it is not
necessary to recover the body of the victim or show where it can be found. It is enough that the death and the criminal
agency causing death is proven. The
Court recognized that there are cases where the death and intervention of the
criminal agency that caused it may be presumed or established by circumstantial
evidence.

However, the ruling in the Sasota case cannot be applied
to the case at bench. In the Sasota case, the prosecution
witnesses saw the four (4) armed accused forcibly take the victim from his
house to a lake, beating him up all the way to the boat. While sailing, the accused continued
ill-treating the victim until the latter died. The body of the victim was never found.

In this case, however, the prosecution witnesses testified that
they merely saw one of the accused, Carlos Daguing, tie up the hands of
Moronia. He was then taken in the
direction of barangay Monterico
and was never seen or heard from since. At no point during the trial was it ever established that any of the
eight (8) accused beat up Moronia or in any way laid a violent hand on him. Nogalada even testified that he did not hear
any shot fired by any of the eight (8) armed
accused^[10] so as to warrant a reasonable conclusion
that Moronia was killed by accused-appellant or any of his
co-conspirators. Indeed, even the
possible motive of accused-appellant and his group for abducting Moronia was not
definitively established. To be sure,
the circumstances proved are insufficient to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt for the serious crime of kidnapping with murder.

There being no evidence
to the contrary, the disputable presumption under Section 5 (x)(3), Rule 131 of
the Rules of Court would apply, but only insofar as to establish the presumptive death of Moronia. Whether
accused-appellant is responsible
for the death of Moronia is a
different matter. The Rules did not
authorize that from this disputable presumption of death, it should be further
presumed that the person with whom the absentee was last seen shall be
responsible for the subsequent unexplained absence/disappearance of the
latter. The conviction of
accused-appellant for the serious crime of kidnapping with murder cannot be
allowed to rest on the vague and nebulous facts established by the
prosecution. As discussed earlier, the
evidence presented by the prosecution surrounding the events of that fateful
day are grossly insufficient to establish the alleged liability of
accused-appellant for the death of Moronia.

It is a well-entrenched principle in criminal law that an accused
is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. No less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to convict
him. On the whole, the evidence adduced
by the prosecution would not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that accused-appellant should be convicted for the
serious crime of kidnapping with
murder.

Since none of the circumstances mentioned in Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code (kidnapping with serious illegal detention) was proved and
only the fact of kidnapping of Anatalio Moronia was established, we find that
the crime committed is slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code. In the execution of the crime, more than
three (3) armed malefactors acted together in its commission. Thus, since the generic aggravating
circumstance of band^[11]
attended the commission of the crime and there being no mitigating circumstance present, the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period
as maximum and prision mayor as minimum should be imposed on accused-appellant.^[12]

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Abundio Roluna is
found guilty of slight illegal detention and is meted an indeterminate sentence
from twelve (12) years of prision
mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.^[13] Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Docketed as Criminal Case No. B-1610; Original Records, p. 114.

^[2]
TSN, December 20, 1990, pp. 5-20.

^[3]
TSN, January 3, 1991, pp. 26-38.

^[4]
id., pp. 59-62.

^[5]
id., pp. 62-65, 68-70.

^[6]
Penned by Judge Teofilo R. Redubla, Rollo, pp. 11-17.

^[7]
23 C.J.S. 623-624.

^[8]
id., p. 264.

^[9]
No. L-3544, April 18, 1952, 91 Phil. 111.

^[10]
TSN, January 3, 1991, p. 39.

^[11]
Article 14 (6), Revised Penal Code.

^[12]
Article 268 in relation to Article 64 (3) of the Revised Penal Code.

^[13]
Section 1 of Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), as amended.