THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RAMON COSCA ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The appellants were charged with taking Cristina Biel away through force,
violence and intimidation against her will and with lewd designs, prosecuted,
tried, and convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila found guilty of
the crime of abduction with violence and each sentenced to fourteen years, eight
months and one day reclusion temporal, the accessory penalties, and one-third of
the costs.

The three accused appeal from said judgment, each denying, in the memorandum
presented by respective counsel, being guilty of the crime charged.

Cristina Biel, the offended party, asserts that in company with her two
children of tender age, she was taken to Manila from Cavite by Ramon Cosca in an
automobile, by force and with evident lewd designs; that in the car driven by
one of the three defendants there were besides the latter and the offended party
and her two children, two women, one named Ema and the other Catalina Daño; that
upon arriving at Manila they went to Quiapo Church, where Ema alighted, and from
there they went to a canteen belonging to David Thomas in the barrio of
Sañgandaan, Rizal, where all alighted, the accused taking beer and Cosca wine,
offering her some beer which she declined; that from said canteen they returned
to Manila, stopping in front of a store on Rizal Avenue, and there Ramon Cosca
frightened her with a pistol (which turned out to be a toy), and Vicente Salas
with some bullets which he bought at said store, the defendant Santiago Mapalad
warning her that if she did not accede to his wishes, everybody would die in the
automobile; that she, both there and at other points along the way, started to
shout but Ramon Cosca put his hand over her mouth; that from Rizal Avenue, they
went and stopped in front of the Savoy Theater, the defendant Mapalad alighting
to fetch Ema; that there, because the people were beginning to stare at the
automobile on account of the shouts of the offended party, Ramon Cosca let her
and her children go; that she went to an office in which there was a Spaniard or
an American and asked him to defend her; that Ramon Cosca went up to her
offering P50 if she would go back to Cavite, but she refused; that, in running
about in her excitement she met a policeman, Dionisio Comendador, to whom she
related the occurrence; that on the advice of said policeman, she and her two
children went to the Meisic station.

There is no question in the case
that the trip was made along that route and by all the persons mentioned by the
offended party. What the defense contends is that the offended party, not only
went with the defendants willingly, but that it is she who suggested to Ramon
Cosca that they all take the ride to Manila on the afternoon in question.

At the outset, it seems rather strange that the defendants in thus abducting
the offended party, allowed two other women to accompany them who were not shown
to have any connection therewith, and headed for Manila, of all places, and went
to the crowded sections of the City.

The offended party’s testimony touching the force and violence and other
attempts to which she was subjected, is not sufficiently corroborated in the
record. While it is true that the witness Catalina Daño, in her declaration
before the Constabulary (Exhibit C) in substance confirmed the offended party in
her incriminating statements against the accused, yet, during the trial of the
case upon being asked to explain her declaration to the Constabulary written in
Exhibit C, declared that such statement given by her was untrue, taught to her
by the offended party because the latter said her husband would kill her.

David Thomas and Casimira Thomas, the owners of the canteen named “Country
Home,” state that except for the fact that Cristina Biel seemed vexed or
disgusted while in the canteen, and said: “What sort of men are these to make my
husband appear as a cuckold!”,—aside from this they say they noticed nothing
out of the ordinary about her, nor did she ask for any help. Neither of these
witnesses corroborates the offended party in her declaration that while there
she asked for an auto for rent in which to return to Cavite. If it were true as
she says that she was then the victim of the accused, she could have asked for
help at that canteen, and remained there in order to separate herself from the
defendants instead of again going with them of her own free will, according to
the testimony of said owners of that establishment.

Policeman Comendador, indeed, testified that the offended party approached
him and told him that she had been brought to Manila against her will by some
men who ran away. But in view of the result of the proceeding, the story which
she told the policeman must have been an accusation devised by her against the
defendants on account of not having been able to obtain from Ramon Cosca the P50
which she had repeatedly asked him for during the trip and which Cosca did not
give her promising it to her when they got to Cavite; which, as shown by the
evidence of the defense, seems worthier of credence being more probable and
partially corroborated by the witnesses for the prosecution. For, Ramon Cosca
testifies that at the time of the incident, he was having intimate relations
with the offended party; although the latter denies it, she admits that for some
time she has been separated from Constantino Teodosis, the man with whom she
lived maritally and had children, and that she went to live in the house of Ema,
one of her companions on the trip on the afternoon in question, and that the
defendant Ramon Cosca used to visit her in that house.

Cosca testified that on the morning of the incident, the offended party asked
him to take her for a ride to Manila, and that is why he told the old woman
Catalina Daño to look for an automobile in the afternoon and pick up the
offended party, passing later for him and Ema, who wished to go with them to
Manila, all of which took place as stated. He is substantially corroborated in
this not only by his codefendant Santiago Mapalad, but even by the witness for
the prosecution Catalina Daño, especially as to the fact that it was the
offended party who at that time wanted to come to Manila.

Ramon Cosca also states that upon reaching the Savoy Theater, he and his
codefendants left the car to look for Ema; that on returning to it Cristina Biel
and her two children were no longer there; that he and his companions got into
the car again and drove around the place in search of the offended party and her
children returning to the said Savoy Theater, where they were seen and arrested
by a policeman. The fact that they returned to that place is corroborated by
Policeman Comendador who is the one, upon having learned from Cristina Biel the
number of the car, recognized it, stopped it and after having consulted his
sergeant by telephone detained the three appellants and the old woman Daño. The
fact in itself, thus confirmed, of having driven around from about 6 o’clock,
when the offended party went up to Policeman Comendador, until about 8 o’clock,
when the same policeman detained the defendants, according to the time fixed by
him, tends to confirm the allegation of the defense that the defendants were
really looking for the offended party. If it were true that, as she
declared, being pursued by Ramon Cosca she entered the office of a Spaniard or
American (who, to be sure, did not testify in this case) asking for help and
that Ramon Gosca in order to silence her offered her P50 which she rejected, it
would seem highly improbable that in the face of such conduct on the part of the
offended party, the defendants should have still remained at the place, driving
around there, instead of fleeing from Manila in order to cover up their guilt.

Considering all the circumstances of the case, we deem the defense’s
allegation worthy of credit, to the effect that during the trip in question she
asked Ramon Cosea for P50 which the latter did not give her but promised to do
so in Cavite, whereat she became displeased and made up her mind to go to the
police and denounce the accused.

In cases like the present one wherein the offended party’s story, the greater
part of which is improbable, is not corroborated by the other evidence of the
case as against the defendants, and wherein the allegations of the defense
appear to be more in consonance with the normal and usual course of human
events, and are partly confirmed by the evidence in the case, and even by the
testimony of some of the witnesses for the prosecution, the best action to take,
as justice demands, is to give more credit to the exculpatory testimony of the
defendants applying in their favor, as subsisting and intact the presumption
that a man is innocent until the contrary is shown.

For the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the appellants
are acquitted with the costs de oficio and other pronouncements in their favor,
and it is ordered that Santiago Mapalad, one of said appellants, at present
detained in this case, be immediately released. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, and Villa-Real,
JJ., concur.