PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEODEGARIO LADRERA ALIAS “RUBEN TAGALOG”, ANTONIO GUIBAO, ROGELIO SUPERADA, ROMY DE BASCO, HERMINIGILDO DE LOS SANTOS Y HABITA…

This is an automatic review of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal Which convicted Leodegario Ladrera alias “Ruben Tagalog“,
Antonio Guibao Planillo
alias “Antonio Guibao“, Herminigildo
de los Santos y Abitan,
Jose Galban y Munlon, Jose
Bautista y Pombuena and Felizardo
Vargas y Gipaya
of the crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder and sentenced them to DEATH,
to proportionately indemnify the offended party in the amount of P12,000.00
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

On November 13, 1968, Ricardo Sy, 11
years old and a fourth grade student at Jose Rizal
College was kidnapped in front of his own house at Mandaluyong,
Rizal.

The following day, November
14, 1968, Ricardo’s father, Sy Kiat, a wealthy Chinese businessman received a series of
telephone calls informing him that Ricardo was in the callers’ custody.  The callers demanded a ransom of P45,000.00 for the boy’s release.  Sy Kiat pleaded that the ransom be reduced since he did not
have that much cash.  The kidnappers also
instructed Sy Kiat that
Alice Grino, a housemaid of the Sys should be the one
to bring the ransom money to a certain place in Cubao,
Quezon City.

On November 15, 1968,
CIS agent Winifredo Recuenco,
whose help was requested by a relative of Mrs. Sy,
tried to implement a plan to entrap the kidnappers.  Alice
Grino was given “fake” money to deliver to the
kidnappers with the police authorities trailing her.  Unfortunately, this scheme did not work out
as Grino deliberately failed to follow the detailed
instructions on the route she should take and how delivery of the money should
be effected.  In
the morning of November 15, 1968, Grino took the
bus instead of a taxi as ordered by Recuenco.  Hence, the police authorities were not
able to trail her.  Upon her return, Grino stated that she took the bus and went to the place is as
instructed by the kidnappers but the kidnappers did not appear at the designated meeting place.  In the afternoon of the same day, when the
police authorities were finally able to trail Grino
the kidnappers never appeared.

Two days after, or on November
17, 1968, the body of the kidnapped boy was discovered concealed in
a culvert at the canal near the
gate of the Sys’ house.  Dr. Ernesto P. Jimenez, NBI medico-legal officer
who conducted the autopsy on Ricardo’s cadaver found that the body was bloated
and in an advanced stage of decom­position accompanied by a greenish-black discoloration of the
skin and peeling off of the epidermal layer on the upper part of the body: 
that there were abrasions on the left cheek, scalp, neck, left elbow
region and on the right and left
wrist; that aside from a wound on the left and right ankles and second degree
burns on the right arm, there was a rope tied around the left foot, ankle
region, and a piece of electric wire tied on the right foot, ankle region
(Exhibit E); and, that there was a piece of rope, which looked like a piece of
cotton, wrapped around the neck of the victim. 
(Exhibit B-6).

According to Dr. Jimenez, the causes of death of Ricardo were the
injuries on the head, severe and traumatic, which were possibly inflicted by a blunt instrument or object directed to the back portion of the head.  The doctor concluded that the injuries
sustained could have been perpetrated two (2) days earlier, more or less,
before the actual necropsy examination was conducted.

On December 3, 1968,
the provincial fiscal of Rizal filed an amended information which charged the appellants plus
Alice Grino, Rogelio Superada
and Romy de Basco with the
crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder.

Rogelio Superada and Romy de Basco could not be tried
as they have remained at large.

Upon motion of the prosecution, Rolando Blanco was discharged
from the information so that he could testify as a state witness.

The trial lasted for about eight years.  After the retirement of Judge Delfin Flores who first handled the trial, Judge Ricardo L.
Pronove, now an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, took over and promul­gated the decision which
acquitted Alice Grino and convicted the appellants.

The trial court ruled that Rolando Blanco’s testimony was
sufficient to establish the guilt of all the appellants, independently of the
extra-judicial statements executed by the latter.

Blanco’s testimony was correctly summarized as follows:

“Rolando Blanco was a worker in a furniture shop at Lerma, Mandaluyong, Rizal.  Being a relative of a maid employed in the
household, he was allowed by Sy Kiat,
the father of the victim Rolando Sy, to live in the
garage of the house which was located at Sta. Ana, Mandaluyong,
Rizal.  A few
days before November 10, 1968,
Blanco met his first cousin, the accused Antonio Guibao
Planillo, alias Antonio Guibao,
in the furniture shop where he was working. 
On the occasion, Planillo requested Blanco to
go to the Caltex station at the intersection of Boni Avenue and P.
Cruz St., at
Mandaluyong,
Rizal, so that he could meet his companions.  In compliance with the request, Blanco went
to the gasoline station on November
10, 1968 at about 7:00 o’clock
in the evening where, aside from his cousin Planillo,
he met the other accused, namely, Jose Galban, Jose
Bautista, Herminigildo de los
Santos, Felizardo
Vargas, Leodegario Ladrera
alias Ruben Tagalog, and a certain Juanito.  The meeting
lasted for about five (5) minutes but during this brief period, Planillo was able to introduce to Blanco accused Ladrera as the “boss”‘ and to inform him that the
group was planning to kidnap Ricardo Sy, one of the
children of the owner of the house where he was living.  At this meeting also, accused Ladrera told Blanco in a point blank manner that if he
would reveal the plot to anybody, he would be killed, a threat which was
repeated by accused Felizardo Vargas.  As required by accused Planillo
and Ladrera, Blanco agreed to act as an observer, to
monitor the movements of the people in the house of Sy
Kiat whose son was the intended victim.  Specifically, Blanco was asked by accused Planillo to go home early and to report to the group the
identity of the people going to the house of Sy Kiat.

“After the meeting, Blanco went home where he met Sy Kiat and the “labandera“‘ who was his aunt.  But because he was afraid of the threat
earlier made by accused Planillo and
Ladrera, he did not reveal to either this aunt or Sy Kiat what he had seen and
heard.

“At about 6:00 o’clock
in the afternoon on November 13, 1968,
while standing near the gate of the house of Sy Kiat,
Blanco saw an approaching red Volkswagen beetle car.  The vehicle was being driven by accused Jose Galban
and seated beside him in the front seat were the accused Ladrera
and Vargas.  The rear seat of the vehicle
was occupied by the other four accused and when the car stopped, accused Galban called Ricardo Sy, a young
boy, who was then driving a
motor cycle in front of the house. 
Responding to the call, Ricardo Sy approached the car, but was forcibly thrown inside the vehicle.  Accused
Felizardo Vargas then immediately covered the mouth of Ricardo Sy and with that, the beetle car sped away.

“At about 7″00 o’clock in the morning on November 14, 1968, while Blanco was
on his way to work at Mandaluyong, Rizal, his cousin, accused
Planillo called him. 
Planillo was then riding on the same
Volkswagen car in the company of accused Galban, Ladrera, Vargas, Bautista and de los
Santos.  After Planillo
informed Blanco that the group had already kidnapped Ricardo Sy, accused Ladrera said that the
ransom money would be fixed in the amount of P45,000.00. 
And, accused de los Santos added that
accused Alice Grino was the one to be asked to
deliver the ransom money somewhere in Quezon
City.  At this meeting, which lasted for
about ten to fifteen minutes, accused Ladrera again
warned Blanco not to tell anyone what had already transpired.  Later on, at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Blanco heard his co-accused
talking about the money which Alice Grino carried and
which they discovered to be fake.

“After working the entire morning on November 15, 1968, at the same furniture shop in
Mandaluyong, Rizal, Blanco
met again Planillo, Galban,
Bautista and de los Santos
at the same gasoline station.  After Planillo informed Blanco that they were going to the place
where Ricardo Sy was being kept, all boarded the red
Volkswagen car, belonging to Ladrera, which proceeded
to a “barong­-barong” located at the squatters area somewhere in Quezon City.  Inside
the “barong?barong”, Blanco watched the hands and feet of
Ricardo Sy tied with a rope behind his back and his
mouth gagged with a piece of black cloth. 
Guarding the prostrate boy at the time were accused Ladrera
and Felizardo Vargas who later on, were joined by
accused Romy de Basco, Superada and a certain Juanito.  Because accused Galban
was the driver of the Sy family, he told Blanco that
it would be better to have the boy killed because Ricardo Sy
could readily identify them to the authorities. 
Accused Ladrera also said that since the money
brought by Alice Grino were
fake, they had decided to kill Ricardo Sy.  To the suggestion, accused Felizardo Vargas volunteered to kill Ricardo Sy and although Blanco sympathized with the plight of the
boy, he felt powerless to do anything because he had to follow their gang leader, accused Ladrera.

“Accused Galban, Bautista and
Herminigildo de los Santos
thereafter ordered Blanco to return to the house of the victim and observe any
development.  Accordingly, at about 6:30
o’clock in the evening, Blanco stationed himself at the gate of the house of Sy Kiat while at the same time,
positioned at a street corner near the house were the accused Planillo, Galban and
Bautista.  A few moments later, the same
red Volkswagen car appeared carrying the victim Ricardo Sy
in the company of the accused Ladrera, Vargas, de los Santos, Juanito and Superada.  Stopping
at a distance of about six (6) meters from the house, accused Vargas alighted
from the car and suddenly pushed to the ground Ricardo Sy
whose hands were still tied with rope and whose mouth was still gagged with the
same black piece of cloth.  As a result,
the boy fell down and at that instant, accused Felizardo
Vargas hit Ricardo Sy on the head twice with an iron
pipe.  Accused Jose Galban
who was standing nearby did nothing and after a while, accused de los
Santos bound the body of the victim with a piece of rope to which a stone was
attached.  Thereafter, accused Ladrera and Felizardo Vargas
shoved the body of the victim inside a culvert and the death weapon, which
measured about 1 foot and 10 inches in length 3 to 5 lbs. in weight, was handed
by accused Galban to Rolando Blanco for
safekeeping.  Upon receiving it, Blanco
hid the iron pipe in a room on top of the garage where he was staying.”

As their main defense, the appellants question the credibility of
Blanco on two material points.

First to be challenged is Blanco’s account of how the commission of the kidnapping on November 13, 1968 was
effected.  The appellants specifically
stress the improbability of Blanco’s testimony that eight of the accused
arrived in a red Volkswagen beetle immediately before the kidnapping
incident.  They submit that a small
Volkswagen beetle whose normal capacity
is five passengers could not have possibly accommodated nine (9) people including Ricardo Sy.

Blanco under
cross-examination testified on this matter as follows:

Q.   Mr.
Blanco, when the Volkswagen beetle arrive at the site
of the alleged kidnap­ping on November 13, 1968, how many persons were riding
at the back of the said car?

A.    Five,
sir.

Q.   They
were seated side by side?

A.    One
of top of the other.  (Underlining
supplied)

Q.  
And according to you, there were three persons seated in front of the
said car, is that correct?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Four,
including the deceased Ricardo Sy?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   They
were also sitting one on top of the other?

A.    Ricardo
Sy was seated on the lap of one of them while the others were sitting side by side.

(Tsn, January
26, 1970, pp. 1216-1217)

In a subsequent cross-examination, Blanco when asked about the
same issues reiterated that there where eight people inside
the beetle who were “piled on top of each other.” (Tsn, March 23, 1970
p. 35).

This testimony of Blanco readily explains how eight or nine
people could be accommodated in the volkswagen
beetle.  They sat one on top of each
other.  As the trial court observed:  “While it cannot he denied that nine persons might find it inconvenient to ride in small
vehicle like the beetle car, it was not impossible for them to do so, however,
considering that the accused and
Ricardo Sy, who was then a young boy, were of slight
built and small stature.”

Given the seating arrangement and the slight built and stature of
the accused, it was not impossible for the eight accused and Ricardo Sy to have been accommodated in the beetle.  Criminals bent on the heinous crime of kidnapping a helpless boy for
ransom, who insured that no participant
would “squeal” by having everyone take part in the main act of the
crime, would not hesitate to pack themselves into a small car without
minding the inconvenience.

Second, is Blanco’s account on the actual killing of Ricardo Sy.  The appellants claim that Blanco’s testimony
to the effect that Ricardo was killed
by the accused in front of his house
at about six o’clock in the evening at the time when police authorities were
already investigating the
kidnapping is quite incredulous.  They
raise the following query:  Why was the
killing not carried out in the squatter’s area in Quezon
City which was a secluded place wherein no one could have possibly witnessed
the crime?

The decision to kill Ricardo in front of his own house is
explained by the record.

On November 15, 1968, CIS agent Winifredo
Recuenco tried to entrap the kidnappers.  As stated earlier, this entrapment was to be
executed by the operatives trailing Alice Grino who,
upon the insistence of the kidnappers was to bring and deliver the money at a
certain place.  With the use of a
vicinity map, Alice Grino pointed to a place along
East Avenue, Quezon City, near the squat­ter’s area
where she intended to wait for the person who would receive the ransom money at
about 11:00 o’clock that morning.  The
“fake” money was then wrapped in a newspaper and placed inside a traveling bag in the presence of
Max Buan, a Manila
Times reporter and other members
the Sy household.  Recuenco then deployed his men around the vicinity of East Avenue to trap the
kidnappers.  This plan, however,
failed because Alice did not follow the pre-agreed plan.  Instead of taking a taxi to East Avenue, as
agreed upon, she followed the kidnapper’s instructions and took a bus.  Later on, Alice informed Recuenco
that she did not meet the
kidnappers.

At around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon.  Alice Grino was
again instructed by the kidnappers to bring the money.  With this information, Recuenco once more deployed his men in Quezon City.  The police authorities including Alice Grino stayed
at the meeting place until about 6:00 o’clock in the evening but the
kidnappers never appeared.  Recuenco, then, withdrew his men and returned
to the Sy residence.

At about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day, another
telephone call was received.  This time
the caller spoke to Alice Grino who reported that the
kidnappers decided not to appear because they were aware of the trap set up for
them and because the ransom money was composed of fake bills.

These circumstances indicate that the kidnappers were fully informed
about all the movements of the police authorities.  They had a “mole” inside the Sy household who listened during the planning of the
entrapment.  With the knowledge that at
about 6:00 o’clock in the evening of November 15, 1968, the police authorities
would be somewhere else in East Avenue, Quezon City
trying to entrap them, they were confident that they could kill Ricardo Sy right in front of his house at Mandaluyong, Rizal without fear of being discovered.

The perversity of the kidnappers and their callous disregard for
the life of an innocent child are shown by the fact that upon learning of the
entrapment plan and about the pieces of paper or fake money being readied to
fool them, they did not hesitate to kill the small boy in a place and manner calculated
to shock and teach the family, and possibly others, a never to be forgotten
lesson.

We have no doubt about the credibility of Rolando Blanco.  He admitted his participation in the
kidnapping of Ricardo Sy and about his having
monitored or observed the Sy residence during the entire
incident.  The record does not show any
improper motive on his part to falsely implicate the appellants to this
diabolic crime.  In fact, Antonio Guibao is his first cousin. 
They were all positively identified by Blanco.

We
have carefully gone over the detailed testimony of Blanco and find it
credible and worthy of belief.  The
direct examination conducted November 18 and December 10, 1969 covers 75
pages of transcriptions of stenographic notes.  The rigorous cross-examinations conducted by
a battery of five defense lawyers on
January 13, January 19, January 26, February 18, February 24, March
2, March 4, March 23, April 28, May 13, May 19, June 9 June 23, July 7,
and July 20, all in 1970, cover 488 pages of transcribed notes.  Throughout the lengthy cross-examinations, the basic story of the witness remained unshaken.

Moreover, Blanco’s testimony to the effect that Ricardo Sy was hit on the nape of the neck with an iron bar
immediately after he was pushed
out of the car upon their arrival not far from his house was
confirmed by Dr. Jimenez’ findings that the fatal injury on the back portion of Ricardo’s head could have
been caused by a blunt instrument. 
Besides, Dr. Jimenez
testified that when Ricardo’s body was discovered a piece of rope was tied
around the left foot, a piece of electric wire was tied on the right foot, while a piece of cotton was wrapped
around his neck.  These findings confirm
Blanco’s testimony that after the boy was hit he was bound with a piece of rope
to which a stone was attached, obviously to prevent his body from surfacing in
the canal.

Appellants Antonio Guibao Planillo, Herminigildo de los Santos, Jose Galban, Jose
Bautista and Felizardo Vargas executed extra-judicial
statements admitting their participation in the crime.  We have to examine the individual
circumstances surrounding each specific confession instead of making a sweeping
or general statement that none were involuntary or that all were coerced.

The trial court ruled on the admissibility of the extra-judicial
statements.  According to the authors,
they were maltreated by CIS agents and the police authorities of Mandaluyong, Rizal forcing them
to execute the extra-judicial statements.

They contend that they did not complain to the fiscal before whom
their statements were subscribed because they were fearful of further
maltreatment by the CIS agents and police authorities once they returned to
their prison cells.

Owing to they
nature of the crime, the media became interested in the
case so much so that it merited head­lines in the Manila Times, the then leading Philippine newspaper.  The case received wide publicity.  Hence, media representatives both from print
and radio-television were constant witnesses to the investigations conducted on the accused.  In fact, de los
Santos’ and Galvan’s execution of their extra-judicial statements were
witnessed by Max Buan, Jr. of the Manila Times while another
newspaperman and Antonio Seva of the ABS-CBN radio
and television network witnessed Galban’s execution
of his extra-judicial statement.

The presence of the media people during the execution of de los Santos’ and Galban’s
extra-judicial confessions negate the alleged maltreatment suffered by these
accused at the hands of the police authorities. 
It is absurd to conclude that these media people would have pounced upon
any signs or reports of maltreatment and not played them up in their respective newspapers or television and radio
broadcasts.

We take note of de los Santos’ handwritten statement
(Exhibit “N”) wherein he first admitted his participation in the
crime.

De los Santos recounted during the
trial that the contents of his handwritten confession were dictated to him by CIS agents Recuenco and Constantino and that
before he wrote the statement he was mauled by a certain Medina and a Lambert
and three other teenagers who took turns in hitting him with fist blows and
clapping their palms against his ears. 
He also recalled that he was stripped off his clothes after which electric
shocks were applied to his private parts.

An examination of De los Santos’
handwritten state­ment shows an evenness of lines and strokes markedly consistent all
throughout the two page statement.  Human
experience has proven that the lines and strokes of a person’s handwriting
reflect his disposition at a certain given time.  In the case of de los
Santos’ handwritten statement, we do not need a handwriting expert to tell us
that his statement could not have been written under a compulsion of fear and immediately
after he had been subjected to the maltreatment he professed.

In the case of Antonio Planillo alias
“Antonio Guibao” he alleged that while in
the custody of the CIS agents he was boxed and hit with the butt of a long fire­arm
by several CIS agents.  He testified that
he signed his extra-judicial
confession in
front of eight to ten people during office hours at the office of
Inspector Constantino of the CIS.

Likewise, Jose Bautista and Felizardo
Vargas testified about the maltreatment they suffered from the CIS agents who
allegedly forced them to sign their extra­-judicial statements.

All the appellants claim that they were deprived of their right
to silence and to counsel during custodial investigation.  This constitutional objection, however, is unavailing
in the instant case since the questioned extra-judicial statements were taken
before the effectivity of the 1973 constitution.  (People v. Tuvera,
130 SCRA 169).

 The records are bereft of
any reason why the rule enunciated in the cases of People v. Mada-I Santalani (93 SCRA 317), People v. Balane
(123 SCRA 614) and People v. Villanueva (128 SCRA 488) should not be
applied, “that where the defendants did not present evidence of compul­sion
of duress nor violence on their person; where they failed to complain to the
officer who administered their oaths; where they did not institute any criminal
or administrative action against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment;
where there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies; and where they
did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their
claim, all these were considered by this Court as factors indicating voluntariness.”

Hence, the bare assertions of Antonio Guibao
Planillo, Jose Galban and
Jose Bautista that they were maltreated by the CIS agents and the police
authorities forcing them to execute their confessions are not sufficient to
overthrow the prosecution’s evidence that the same were not forcibly extracted
from them.

Herminigildo de los
Santos and Felizardo Varga both
presented medical certificates to bolster their contention that they were
maltreated.  De los
Santos was examined by a medical
specialist of the Office of the Provincial Health Officer, Pasig,
Rizal on December 17, 1968.  The medical certificate does not show any
sign or indication that he was suffering from an injury resulting from his
alleged maltreatment.  In fact, the
medical examination indicates that de los Santos has nosopharyngitis sub-acute which could by no means relate to
the alleged injuries he claims to have suffered during custodial
investigation.

Vargas’ medical certificate as a result of the medical
examination conducted on him by a resident physician of the Philippine General
Hospital showed the following injuries:

“1.    contusion-hematoma,
greenish-blue, at the left shin:

“2.    contusions (violet-blue with greenish periphery), at the
left glabellar area, left pectoral area, and sternal area;

“3.    ruptured bullae
at the left  posterior
neck (2) and at the left para-spinal area, at about
the level of the 2nd thoracic vertebra (1), and at the right olecranon area (1);

“4.   areas of epidermal charring, at the right posterior cervical
area (1), and at the right olecranon area (3).” (Exh.
3, p. 8, Record of Exhibits)

Considering the location of the injuries found in his body and his testimony as
regards the maltreatment he suffered from the CIS agents which occurred
during the late night and the
early morning of November 23, 1968 at the headquarters of the Mandaluyong Police Department, we rule that Vargas’
extra-judicial statement was taken
under duress and should be excluded from the evidence of the prosecution.

Nevertheless, the exclusion of Vargas’ extra-judicial statement
and even the extra-judicial confessions of the other accused will hardly
matter.  We sustain the trial court’s
finding that Rolando Blanco’s testimony, independent of the extra-judicial
confessions of the other accused, is adequate and convincing for the judgment
convicting the herein appellants.

We likewise find implausible the contention that the failure to
similarly maltreat and coerce Ladrera, the mastermind
and leader, was a clever scheme devised by the peace officers to ensnare the
accused in a single net of confessions, while at the same time sparing one of
them to make it appear that, like him, they did not have, and were not
forced, to confess.

The judgment of the lower court
is proper in the light of
the established facts and the then applicable law and jurisprudence.  However, pursuant to Section 19 of Article
III of the new Constitution, the death penalty imposed on the appellants is
reduced to reclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, the questioned judgment of the court a quo
is hereby AFFIRMED except for the modification that the death penalty imposed on the
appellants is reduced to reclusion
perpetua while the indemnification of P12,000.00 is increased to
P30,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Fernan,
Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Yap and Cruz, JJ., see dissent.