THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GIL CACCAM, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Two brothers and two sisters are involved in this interesting drama, and the least important
of them in the story is,
curiously enough, the accused-appellant. 
Yet he is the one who is in prison and has been confined without bail
since his arrest in 1983.  The charge,
for which he has already been convicted, is that he and his brother, conspiring
with each other, kidnaped and detained one of the sisters.  His life sentence is now on appeal before us.^[1]

The problem arose with his brother Roberto Caccam, who is still
at large.  Gil Caccam has been left
holding the bag, so to speak.  The accused-appellant
has no relationship whatsoever with either of the sisters.  It is his brother who has – or had – with
both of them in fact.  Roberto was
engaged to be married to Olivia Quibin, who was already with child by him.  On the day of their wedding, he left her for
her younger sister, Honilyn, with whom he stayed for 44 days.  Now neither of the sisters can locate him;
even the law is looking for him.

When the day of reckoning came, it was Gil Caccam who was made to
face the music.  Well might he have said,
echoing the Biblical disclaimer, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” But he
was not being asked to answer for his brother’s misdeeds or omissions.  Gil was being made to account for his own
acts, as co-principal with Roberto in the kidnaping and illegal detention of
Honilyn.

As alleged by the prosecution, Gil and his brother Roberto
together forced Honilyn to go with them on
that afternoon of June 28, 1983, in Naguilian, La Union.  The incident was narrated by an 8-year old
boy, Diosdado Quibin, who was a cousin of the girls and a neighbor of the
brothers.  This witness testified that
from a distance of about 25 to 35 meters, he saw Gil pulling and Roberto
pushing Honilyn, who was resisting and crying “I don’t like.” He
immediately reported the matter to her mother, who forthwith, accompanied by
two other persons, went out to help Honilyn.^[2]
But the girl was gone.

In her own testimony, Honilyn corroborated Diosdado and added
that it took the brothers about an hour before they could force her to go with
them.  Roberto was pointing a knife at her.  She said that she was struggling and shouting
“Help me!” but nobody did. 
Thereafter, she was taken to the nearby forest, then to an open field,
from there to Camp Uno, then to Bacnotan, La Union, where she was deflowered
without her knowledge or consent after being drugged.  Finally, she was detained for 19 days in the
house of Atty. Abelardo Dumaguing in Baguio City.  She said she was made to take three tablets
regularly that increased her libido and made her want to have sexual
intercourse with Roberto.  While in that
house, she was under constant watch by Roberto and the lawyer and four other
persons, making it difficult for her to escape. 
It was only on August 12, 1983, that he was returned to the custody of
her parents by Atty. Dumaguing, who, incredibly, especially for a lawyer,
demanded a receipt for her.^[3]

On cross-examination, Honilyn admitted that she and Roberto had
been sweethearts for two years even before his affair with her sister
Olivia.  She also acknowledged the
Valentine card and four letters she had sent him in which she had affirmed her
love for him.^[4]
In one of these letters, she had also asked him to stay away from her sister
and even warned him that something bad might happen if he did not do so.^[5]

Remarkably, the focus of her testimony both on direct and
cross-examination was on the events that happened after she had allegedly been
forced by Roberto and Gil Caccam to go with them.  The accused-appellant seems to have vanished
into thin air following his supposed participation with Roberto in her
kidnaping.  The rest of her narration
dealt with the conduct toward her of Roberto and also of the lawyer, who
appears to have had a more active role than Gil in detaining her.  Gil himself was not identified as among the
persons who stayed with her in the house of Atty. Dumaguing.

The thrust of the defense is that Honilyn was not kidnaped by Roberto but in fact willingly eloped with
him to prevent him from marrying her sister Olivia.  The contention is that there was no
kidnaping, and no illegal detention either, because Roberto and Honilyn were
sweethearts.  They had voluntarily left
together to consummate their love for each other.  The elopement was timed to avoid Roberto’s
impending marriage to Olivia that same afternoon.

The Court notes that the only evidence directly linking Gil
Caccam to the supposed abduction of Honilyn is the testimony of the 8-year old
Diosdado as affirmed by Honilyn herself. 
This evidence looks to us too flimsy, like a makeshift structure on
shifting sands, to sustain the accused-appellant’s conviction.  Their narrations must fail because of their
inherent defects, especially in the light of the evidence for the defense.

Diosdado testified that the girl was shouting while she was being
forced by the brothers but nobody seems to
have heard her even if the incident took place about only 30 to 40
meters from the nearest house and at about one
o’clock in the afternoon.^[6]
He also said that he immediately reported the matter to his aunt, but when she
rushed out to help Honilyn, the girl is
already gone despite her positive statement that she was struggling with
the two brothers for about an hour before they finally succeeded in
abducting her.^[7]
Conceivably, her mother could
have succored the girl on time within that hour; and even if Diosdado saw the
incident only during the last few minutes of that
hour, they could still have seen the girl and the two brothers walking the
distance to the forest for this was about 130 meters away.^[8]
As for the knife Honilyn said
Roberto was threatening her
with, Diosdado never spoke of it at all.^[9]
Although he could not have failed to see
it if there was really
one, he merely said that one brother was pulling the girl while the other was pushing her.  There was not even a suggestion that either
of them was armed.

On top of all this, there
are the love letters, which cast serious doubt on Honilyn’s claim that she was
abducted by Roberto Caccam with the assistance of his brother Gil.  These clearly reveal the real sentiments of the girl as she poured out her endearments,
syntax and all, to her “Sweet Roberto”:

I am uneasy due to the thought that someone might attract your
eyes.  And deep inside is the feelings of
fear that a new face will take you away from me.  But I trust you ‘coz you are a kind man I
have ever seen.  Please keep your promise
that I am your endless love, your one and only love.  What’s the meaning of success without you to
share with?  You are my inspiration.  Life will be miserable and my days will not
be complete without thinking of you. 
Please show me that you really love me even though we are far
apart.  For me, I feel life is useless if
we are far from each other.  Remember
that no one else could ever take your place in my heart.  Even my parents, sisters and brothers will
purching or stop on loving you I will not do that.  To forget you is something difficult to
do.  I can’t forget until the end of
time.  Still in love through the years
and this time I’ll be more sweeter to You. 
I hope you also.^[10]

and complained of his seeming
indifference thus:

x x x As a matter of fact I haven’t receive any love letter to you
until the beginning.  Gusto mo kasi, ako
na lagi ang sumusulat sa iyo.  Sulat ako
ng sulat wala ka man lang sagot, ano ako tanga. 
This is my like if I wrote to you I want also your answer.  Hindi yong sulat ako ng sulat wala man lang
sagot ano ang mapapala ko sa pagsusulat ko kung ganon.  I am only wasting time if only like
that.  So you can understand me and I can
understand you also.^[11]

The evidence of the prosecution in this case against the
accused-appellant, particularly as it affects the credibility of Honilyn,
becomes difficult to accept when viewed against her letters.  Given her effusive protestations of love for Roberto, we find ourselves hard put to believe
that she had not traipsed out with him in a romantic spree but, as she now
insists, was taken against her will by the two brothers.

Beyond merely conjecturing
that the girl did not have to be forced
because Roberto was her sweetheart, the defense might have centered its
arguments on the significant fact that
Gil’s supposed participation occurred, if at
all, only for a brief moment as reported by Diosdado and at most only for one hour as narrated by Honilyn herself.  It
has already been remarked that both their declarations are suspect because they
do not even jibe with each other.  But
more importantly, even as his alleged role in the actual abduction is doubtful, Gil apparently had also no participation
at all in the supposed detention of the girl in Bacnotan and later in Baguio
City.

Honilyn herself made no more mention of Gil when she narrated the events that transpired after her
claimed abduction.  The rest – and bulk – of her testimony dealt
with her captivity by Roberto and even the lawyer and the other persons in his house.  She did not name the accused-appellant as one of her captors.  In fact, at one point in her testimony, she
categorically declared that Gil had not come along with them to La Union and Baguio
City.^[12]

The position of the prosecution is that the accused-appellant
should be equally responsible
with Roberto for all of the
events occurring subsequent to the time when the brothers forced Honilyn to go
with them.  Its theory is that the
brothers were conspirators and as such are equally responsible for each other’s
acts up to the time Honilyn was returned to her parents.  But this argument is flawed because the
conspiracy itself has not been sufficiently established.  The only evidence of such combination
consists of the inconsistent testimonies of Diosdado and Honilyn whom we have
both found to be unreliable.  The
evidence they offer can hardly be the basis for making Gil also responsible for
the offense, if any, of his brother and for condemning him to prison for the
rest of his life.

It is a proud principle of the republican system that the
prisoner on the dock shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved.  This enlightened rule of all
democratic societies is intended to afford protection to the accused who is
pitted against the full panoply of the awesome authority of the State itself
with all the resources at its command. 
To correct this disparity, the Constitution imposes upon the prosecution
the obligation to prove beyond reasonable doubt – on the strength of its own
evidence and not the weakness of the defense – the guilt of the accused.  When the prosecution fails, the charge must
be dismissed.

So it must be in this case.

We make no finding here on the accountability of Roberto Caccam
who is yet to be judged on the basis of the evidence to be presented at his own
trial.  But even if he might later be
found guilty of abducting and illegally detaining Honilyn, his crime will not
and should not taint his brother.  Gil’s
part in the alleged offense not having been established and proof of conspiracy
being wanting, we hold that the accused-appellant should be absolved.

It is noteworthy that in the brief he submitted on April 24, 1989, the Solicitor General
has joined the defense in asking for the exoneration of Gil Caccam on the
ground of reasonable doubt.  This
circumstance all the more bolsters the verdict we must reach today.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is REVERSED. 
The accused appellant is ACQUITTED and must be released
immediately.  It is so ordered.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Decision of Judge Avelino S. Quintos, Regional Trial Court, Branch XXXIII,
Bauang, La Union.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 74-75.

^[3]
Ibid, p. 76.

^[4]
Id., pp. 136, 141, 142, 199 and 200.

^[5]
Exh. 1, rollo, pp. 210-211.

^[6]
Id., pp. 75 and 137.

^[7]
Id., pp. 79, 198
and 202.

^[8]
Id., p. 79.

^[9]
Id., pp. 77 and 201.

^[10]
Exh. 4, rollo, p. 212.

^[11]
Id., p. 213.

^[12]
Decision, p. 7, rollo, p. 79.