PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICTORIANO CUA, ALIAS “VIC”, ERLINDA CUA, ALIAS “LINDA”, RODOLFO ANDAL, JESSIE MONTANO Y BENSAY, RODOLFO ILUMEN Y TORRES, NATA…

An information, dated 3 July 1986, was filed by Assistant
Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, Romulo C. Resultan, with the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 57, of San Carlos City (Pangasinan), in Crim. Case No. SCC-1136,
charging the accused with the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom, committed as
follows:

“That on or about June 5, 1986, in the evening, the
above-named accused, confederating and conspiring together and mutually helping
one another, armed with a handgun, teargas and balisong, and with evident
pre-meditation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
the use of force, violence and intimidation, kidnap one SI KIAM LIN y CHAN for
the purpose of extorting ransom in the amount of P400,000.00 at Novaliches,
Metro Manila, and thereafter took him with the use of a motor vehicle to
barangay Tampog and then to Barangay Ligue, municipality of Bayambang, province
of Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, where he was
kept under detention against his will until he was rescued by elements of the
INP of Bayambang, Pangasinan, on the morning of June 9, 1986.

Contrary to Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.”^[1]

Upon arraignment on 8 August 1986, each of the accused pleaded
not guilty. Thereafter, trial proceeded
and both prosecution and defense adduced their respective evidence. On 11 November 1987, the court a quo
rendered judgment* finding the six (6) accused
“guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom,
defined and punished under Art. 267, of the Revised Penal Code,” and
sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, instead of
death as provided in said Art. 267, due to the qualified removal of the death
penalty by the 1987 Constitution.^[2]

Except for accused spouses Victoriano Cua and Erlinda Cua who
jumped bail at the early stage of the trial and Natalio Ilumen who was earlier
discharged from the case on motion of the prosecution without any objection
from the defense,^[3]
the case is before us for review after notices of appeal were filed by
accused-appellants Jessie Montano, Silvestre de la Cruz, Rodolfo Andal and
Rodolfo Ilumen.

The material facts and events as found by the court a quo are:

“The evidence of the prosecution shows that about 1:00 o’clock
in the afternoon of June 5, 1986 Si Kiam Lin, a Chinese national, received a
telephone call at his home in Makati, Metro Manila, from the spouses Victoriano
Cua and Erlinda Cua, his acquaintances of one year and whom he identified later
in Court, informing Si that they knew of some scrap iron for sale at a cheap
price. Si is engaged in the buying and
selling of scrap iron. Si agreed to
meet the couple that evening at around 6 or 7 o’clock. It was arranged that Si and Erlinda Cua
would meet at a certain grocery store at the Malinta exit of the North
Expressway. Si and Erlinda met at the
appointed place that evening. Si was
driving his own car. Erlinda got in the
car and directed Si to proceed to Novaliches where at a certain place they
stopped near a sari-sari store. Erlinda
alighted from the car, went to the store and talked to somebody. Si was about to get down from his car when
Rodolfo Andal, Rodolfo Ilumin, Jesus Montano and Silvestre dela Cruz, whom Si
identified in Court, suddenly appeared, pushed him roughly into the back seat
of the car and handcuffed him. Then on
orders of Erlinda Cua they divested him of the contents of his pockets
consisting of a check for P20,000.00, a blank check, a dishonored check for P35,000.00
issued by Erlinda Cua, P500.00 in cash and his wristwatch (Exh.
“D”). He was threatened that
his head would be blown off with a gun pointed at his neck by Rodolfo Andal if
he made any noise. Si was seated at the
back seat of the car between Montano and dela Cruz while Erlinda Cua seated
herself in the front seat with Rodolfo Andal and Rodolfo Ilumen who took the
wheel. Si was driven around for
sometime then brought to a dark isolated place which appeared to be a new
subdivision under construction. There,
he, Montano and dela Cruz got down. The
others left with the car. He was placed
in a cubicle about one meter square guarded by Montano and dela Cruz. At about 3:00 o’clock in the morning the
same car came back. Si, Montano and
dela Cruz were loaded into the car and they were driven by Rodolfo Ilumin to
Tampog, Bayambang, Pangasinan, where they arrived in the early morning of June
6, 1986. The handcuffs of Si were
removed when he complained that he was hurting. They were endorsed to Patricio Maregmen by Rodolfo Ilumin,
brother-in-law of Maregmen. They were
introduced by Ilumin to Maregmen as his ‘Compadres’. At about 11:00 o’clock of the same day June 6, 1986 Rodolfo
Ilumin left the place with the car. The
three, Si, Montano and dela Cruz were left behind. They were taken care of by Maregmen.

In Tampog, Rosie Agbuya Maregmen left her home early in the morning
of June 7, 1986 to wash clothes in the river. She is a neighbor and niece-in-law of Patricio Maregmen. Their houses are only two armslength
apart. Returning from her washing
chores at about 9 or 10 o’clock that same morning she noticed three strangers
in the one-storey house of Maregmen one of whom looked like a chinaman sitting
in a corner of the house looking dejected, the other two (2) on each side. Rosie heard one of the two utter that they
should have killed the chinaman on the way but anyway they will let him enjoy
(maglakuatsa) first. Rosie wanted to
talk to the chinaman but could not because the two guards were there. So she wrote a note on a small piece of
paper. When the two finally left the
chinaman’s side and went to the rear of the house, she croached by the open
door and threw the note towards the chinaman who picked it up. In the note Rosie offered to help, advised
the chinaman to find a way to escape because the two intended to kill him and
asked for his address and phone number (Exh. ‘Y’). Then Rosie left to watch television in the house of her ‘Ninang’
Flor Prado. When she returned home at
about 11:30 that morning the strangers including the chinaman were no longer in
Maregmen’s house. Rosie Maregmen
identified Montano and dela Cruz in Court as the two (2) men with the chinaman.

Meanwhile, in Metro Manila in the afternoon of June 6, 1986 at
around 4:30 Victor Uy, the son-in- law of the victim Si Kiam Lin and who
resides with the victim in Makati, received at his office a telephone call from
his mother-in-law directing him and his wife to go home immediately. Upon reaching home Victor was informed by
his mother-in-law that an unidentified person called her up by phone demanding
a ransom of P400,000.00 for Si Kiam Lin. Then the caller hung up. The
next day June 7, 1986 between 12:20 and 12:30 in the afternoon another
telephone call was received by Victor demanding P400,000.00 ransom for Si Kiam
Lin with the threat on the life of Si if the ransom is not paid. Victor, however, responded that they could
not raise the amount then because the banks were closed it being a Saturday. The caller hung up. On June 8, 1986 at around 9:30 in the
evening another telephone call was received again by Victor. This time he was informed that if they
wanted to hear the voice of the victim he was to proceed to the Plaza Fair near
the Sta. Cruz church and there he will find a tape record rolled in a Tempo
Newspaper. Some ten (10) minutes later
another telephone call was received by the victim’s wife again demanding a
ransom of P400,000.00 or else they were going to kill the victim. Si Kiam Lin’s wife did not answer. As instructed Victor recovered the tape
record, (Exh. ‘V’) which was surrendered by him to the police authorities of
Bayambang on June 9, 1986 after the victim was rescued in barangay Ligue.

After an overnight stay in Tampog the victim Si Kiam Lin, Montano
and dela Cruz were fetched by Rodolfo Ilumin on June 7, 1986. They rode in a Pantranco bus up to the town
proper of Bayambang, Pangasinan, where they transferred to two (2) tricycles
which brought them to Barangay Ligue of the same municipality. Si Kiam Lin was confined in a small
hut. The hut had no electricity so he
was brought to a nearby house provided with electricity and there he was made
to tape record a message to his family. Then Rodolfo Ilumin left, leaving Si Kiam Lin, Montano and dela Cruz in
the hut. This is the same tape
recovered by Victor Uy from the Plaza Fair in Sta. Cruz, Manila in the evening
of June 8, 1986.

On June 8, 1986 at about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon Barangay
Captain Narciso Main, at Ligu, Bayambang, Pangasinan, was informed by a boy
Renato de Vera about the presence of strangers and a chinaman in the
barangay. Barangay Captain Main went to
see his councilman Joaquin de Vera and inquired if he knew the strangers but de
Vera answered that he was suspicious and he sensed that there was something
wrong. That afternoon at about 5:00
o’clock Captain Main alerted his Barangay policemen about the presence of the
strangers in the hut of Feliciana Alvarez and instructed them to be observant. At 2:00 or 3:00 o’clock the next morning
Captain Main reported the presence of the strangers to Station Commander Efren
Quiliana at the Poblacion of Bayambang.

Station Commander Quilana (sic) gathered about a dozen of his men
and riding in a fire truck with Captain Main they proceeded to Barangay Ligue to
the vicinity of the hut where the victim was being held prisoner. The contingent arrived there at about 3:45
A.M. Since it was still dark and the
policemen were warned by Captain Main that the two guards of the victim were
armed, the policemen waited for daybreak. Station Commander Quilana (sic) divided his men into two teams and
deployed them around the house. The
team led by Patrolman Leon Macaso was designated to lead the assault on the
hut. Between 5:00 and 6:00 o’clock
Macaso and his team entered the hut through the kitchen at the back. Sensing that they were being raided Montano
and dela Cruz jumped out of the hut but they were met by the team of Sgt.
Quilana (sic). The two were ordered to
lie flat on the ground but they persisted on running away. They were caught but they struggled. In the process the two were injured. Realizing the futility of escape the two
finally obeyed and lay face flat on the ground. They were searched. Found
in the person of Silvestre dela Cruz (a) a mission order No. H-045-86 dated
June 3, 1986 issued to Silvestre dela Cruz (Exh. ‘R’); (b) a plastic laminated
CID identification card No. 173 (Exh. ‘Q’); (c) a plastic laminated AFP
enlisted person identification card (Exh. ‘Q’); (d) appointment of Silvestre
dela Cruz as an agent of the PILEP-CID dated January 21, 1986 (Exh. ‘5’); (e) a
bronze CID badge No. 050 (Exh. ‘P’); (f) a balisong knife (Exh. ‘M’) and (g) a
pair of handcuffs (Exh. ‘N’). From
Motano confiscated were: (a) a
professional driver’s license (Exh. ‘G’); (b) a one thousand yen paper note
(Exh. ‘L’; (c) a tear gas canister (Exh. ‘F’); (d) a bronze CID badge No. 075
(Exh. ‘H’); (e) a CID identification card (Exh. ‘I’); (f) an appointment as a
PILEP-CID agent (Exh: ‘J’); (g) a mission order No. H-039-86 dated May 20, 1986
(Exh. ‘K’); and (h) an armalite bullet (Exh. ‘H’).”^[4]

In the present appeal, appellants assign the following errors to
the court below:

“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM UNDER
ARTICLE 267 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
ALLOWING ACCUSED MONTANO AND DELA CRUZ TO TESTIFY FOR THE PROSECUTION DESPITE
THE VEHEMENT OBJECTION OF COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ALL THE ACCUSED
BASED ON THE TESTIMONIES OF MONTANO AND DELA CRUZ.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
NOT GIVING WEIGHT TO THE UNCONTROVERTED TESTIMONIES OF THE ACCUSED.” ^[5]

Appellants contend that, based on the evidence of record, they
could not have committed the crime charged. Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides —

“ART. 267. Kidnapping
and serious illegal detention. – Any
private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner
deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death:

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have
lasted more than five days.

2. If it shall have been committed simulating
public authority.

3. If any serious physical injuries shall have
been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him
shall have been made.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be
a minor, female or a public officer.

The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any person,
even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the
commission of the offense. (As amended
by Rep. Acts Nos. 18 (passed in 1946) and 1084, approved June 15, 1954).”

Appellants submit that none of the elements (in pars. 1, 2, 3 and
4) of Article 267, Revised Penal Code, was present in this case because: First, the alleged kidnapping did not last
more than five (5) days as the records show that the incident commenced in the
evening of 5 June 1986 and ended in the early morning of 9 June 1986 when the
alleged rescue operation took place. Second, there was no simulation of public authority employed in the
alleged kidnapping. Third, there is no
record of serious physical injury inflicted on the private complainant Si Kiam
Lin nor was there a threat made to kill him. And, lastly, the person allegedly kidnapped or detained is not a minor,
female or public officer.

Furthermore, appellants maintain that there was no evidence adduced
to establish that the alleged kidnapping was for the purpose of extorting
ransom; that the testimony of Victor Uy, son-in-law of Si Kiam Lin, was merely
hearsay as the alleged demand for ransom was received by the wife of the
private complainant and not by Victor Uy himself.

Appellants’ first assignment of error is without merit. Admittedly, the detention did not last more
than five (5) days; there was no simulation of public authority; there was no
recorded physical injury inflicted on Si (although a threat appears to have
been made to kill him); and the victim was not a minor, female or public
officer. And yet, the events which
occurred from the time the victim-complainant was taken from Novaliches up to
his rescue in Barangay Ligue, Bayambang Pangasinan, can hardly be viewed as a
picnic or sight-seeing tour. Physical
and actual detention of the victim’s person was manifest in that he was
handcuffed, placed inside a one-by-one square meter cubicle and later transported
to a remote barrio in the north and placed under constant and continuous guard
by two (2) of the accused-appellants. The victim may have been allowed free movement inside the hut where he
was kept but the fact that he dared not escape as he felt he was being kept a
prisoner by the accused is quite obvious from his testimony. Thus –

“Q         –
                When you were at
Brgy. Tampog, Bayambang, Pangasinan, were you bound or kept captived in a room?

A            –                  Yes
sir, I was inside the house.

Q            –                  Were
you handtied or handcuffed in Tampog?

A            –          In Tampog, my handcuff was
removed already, sir.

x x x x x x xxx

Q – You can move around freely in the house not only in the house where you
were taken but also you can go outside to answer the call of nature? If you wanted to, is it not?

WITNESS

Inside the house only
sir, because they don’t allow me to go outside the house.

Q          –                    Who won’t allow you to go
outside the house?

A           –                    I do not know sir, because
all of them were outside the house.

Q          –                    But you said you were not
allowed to go down the house, who won’t allow you to go down the house?

A           –                    They were only two (2)
there. The other one is not there.

Q          –                    Who was not there?

A           –                    That one sir, (witness
pointing to Rodolfo Ilumen).

Q          –                    Of the two (2) persons who
were your companion at Brgy. Tampog who of them who told you not to go down the
house?

A           –                    Both of them, sir.

Q          –                    In what way did the two (2)
tell you categorically that you will not go down the house? What is their specific language?

A           –                    They just told me that ‘you
just stay here inside upstairs.’”^[6]

The foregoing testimony of the victim clearly shows that he was
kidnapped, detained against his will, and deprived of his liberty. The fact of detention which is an essential
element in the crime of kidnapping, was clearly established.

The testimony of victim’s son-in-law, Victor Uy, shows that the
victim was kidnapped and deprived of his liberty for the purpose of extorting
ransom from his family. Thus –

“Q       –                    While you were in your
office on the aforestated address do (did) you receive any message coming
outside your office?

A         –                    Yes, sir.

Q        –                    What is that message that
you received if any?

A         –                    That my mother-in-law called
us by phone and told us together with my wife that we are going to return home
immediately, sir.

Q          –                    After you returned home what
did your mother-in-law told (sic) you?

A –                   She
told us that unidentified telephone caller says that they are going to give
(get) cash money in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00) for
ransom of his father-in-law (SI KIAM LIN) and at that moment the telephone
caller drop the telephone, sir.

Q          –                    After what happen(ed) next
if any?

A –                   That
at about 12:20 o’clock in the morning of June 7, 1986 unidentified telephone
caller (called) up again and I personally received the telephone call and at
this juncture the telephone caller says that if his father wants to live he
will give the money they are asking, sir.

Q          –                    What did you answer to the
unidentified telephone caller?

A           –                    I told him that the banks is
close during Saturday and Sunday, sir.

Q          –                    What did the telephone
caller say to you?

A           –                    He was angry and dropped the
telephone immediately, sir.

Q          –                    What transpired next do you
know if any?

A – That last June 8, 1986 at around 9:30 o’clock in the evening unidentified
telephone caller called up again and I was the one who received the telephone
call and he told me that if you want to hear the voice of your father you
proceed to plaza fair near Sta. Cruz and there is a tape rolled at Tempo
Newspaper, sir.

Q          –                    Were you able to get the
said tape rolled with Tempo Newspaper?

A           –                    Yes, sir.

Q          –                    What happen(ed) next do you
know if any?

A – That there is again a telephone call at around 9:40 o’clock in the
evening of June 8, 1986 and was received by my mother-in-law that they are
going to prepare the cash money in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P400,000.00) or else they are going to kill my father- in-law sir.

Q          –                    What did your mother-in-law
say to the telephone caller?

A           –                    She just keep silent,
sir.”^[7] (Underscoring supplied)

The second and third errors allegedly committed by the trial
court will be discussed jointly.

Appellants’ contention that the court a quo erred in allowing
accused-appellants Silvestre de la Cruz and Jesus Montano to testify for the prosecution
despite the vehement objection of counsel for accused-appellants (except
counsel for Montano and De la Cruz) and subsequently convicting all the accused
on the basis of the said testimony, is likewise without merit.

Accused-appellants de la Cruz and Montano have tried to extricate
themselves from the crime charged. But
the records show that they attempted to escape from the police authorities
(instead of coordinating or collaborating with them) when they were being
arrested after a brief struggle. They
now urge upon and move the Court to believe that they were actually undercover
agents of the CID^[8]
with a mission to uncover the mastermind and other members of the kidnapping
syndicate. The observations of the
court below are apropos in disposing of their pretense. Thus –

“There is absolutely no doubt as to the accused Jesus
Montano’s and Silvestre dela Cruz’ participation in the crime of kidnapping for
ransom. They were readily identified by
the victim Si Kiam Lin as two of the four persons who took part in abducting
him in Bagong Silang and who guarded him in that isolated place from about 8:00
o’clock in the evening of June 5, 1986 to about 2:00 or 3:00 o’clock in the
morning of June 6, 1986. These two
accused were also his guards in the car on the way to Bayambang, Pangasinan,
and in Tampog and Ligue until the victim was rescued in the early morning of
June 9, 1986. They were arrested by the
police in Ligue during the rescue operation. The pretensions of these two accused that they ingratiated themselves to
the group of the Cuas and participated in the abduction of the victim only
because as CID agents they wanted to infiltrate and expose the kidnapping
‘syndicate’ is not compatible with their conduct and behaviour before and
during the abduction of the victim. If
indeed such was their intention, they did not manifest it in spite of the many
opportunities they had to abort the kidnapping or to expose the crime. The could have immediately exposed the
projected kidnapping to the authorities after they were briefed of the details
thereof by Victoriano Cua in the afternoon of June 4, 1986. But they did not. They and the victim were left alone in the isolated area in
Bagong Silang for no less than six (6) hours on the night of June 5-6, 1986 yet
they did nothing to escape therefrom and seek refuge with the proper
authorities. On the way to Bayambang,
Pangasinan, a long drive from Caloocan City, with Rodolfo Ilumin during the
car, they could have contrived a deception to call the attention of the
authorities in any of the provinces they passed or they could have overpowered
Ilumin, whom the Court observed is a relatively smaller man than them and
brought him to the authorities. Again,
they were left alone in Barangay Tampog and Ligue in Bayambang, for at least
two (2) days but they never took steps to contact either the barangay or police
authorities. They were even within a
few yards of the municipal building of Bayambang, Pangasinan, on June 7, 1986
when they alighted in the Poblacion of Bayambang, when they were being
transferred by Ilumin from Barangay Tampog to Barangay Ligue. This Court rejects the assertion of Montano
and dela Cruz that they could not report the kidnapping to the authorities
because they feared for the lives of the members of their families against whom
the alleged ‘syndicate’ may retaliate. There is no basis for this apprehension of these accused. In the first place, there is no evidence
that there is a kidnapping syndicate in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City. Secondly, if indeed these accused are
members of the CID they could have sought protection for their families from
their agency or the police. Thirdly,
they testified for the prosecution spontaneously and voluntarily without regard
to the safety of their families who were then still exposed to the members of
the alleged syndicate. Fourthly, it was
their duty, if they were truly members of the CID, to bring the culprits to the
bar of justice. They had no business enlisting
as agents of a law-enforcement agency if they lacked the courage to do their
duty.” ^[9]

To the above observations of the trial court we can only add
that, quite strangely, no “CID” higher authority or any police or
intelligence officer, for that matter, had testified during the trial to lend
credence or substance to the pretense that Montano and de la Cruz were indeed
lawful agents and involved in the kidnapping of Si pursuant to duly-issued
mission orders.

Both appellants (Montano and de la Cruz) voluntarily offered
themselves to be witnesses for the prosecution. Montano wrote the victim Sy Kiam Lin two (2) times (Exhs.
“W” and “X-2”) and, together with de la Cruz, also wrote
Fiscal Romulo Resultan (Exh. “DD” and series) wherein they narrated
their involvement in the kidnapping from the time it was planned during a
drinking session with the other accused Rodolfo Andal up to their arrest in
Barangay Lique, Bayambang, Pangasinan. At the hearings on 3 and 10 December 1986, the prosecution presented the
appellants Montano and de la Cruz as ordinary witnesses with the conformity of
their counsel, Atty. Divina Cuejillo. They were not presented as state witnesses who had been discharged from
the information. The court a quo, did
not err in allowing both Montano and de la Cruz to testify for the prosecution,
as they opted to do so.

Later, appellants De la Cruz and Montano again testified as
defense witnesses. Said testimonies
were basically the same as the testimonies they gave when they voluntarily
testified for the prosecution. They
duly established that they were participants in the crime charged. As aptly stated by the Solicitor General,
“x x x, a reading of their direct testimonies for the prosecution as
conducted by the public prosecutor also shows that they used the opportunity to
advance the theory of their defense, i.e., that they were mere intelligence
agents out to infiltrate the particular kidnapping syndicate involved.”^[10] In our view, the testimonies of de la
Cruz and Montano served as corroborative evidence since the testimony of the
victim wherein all the accused were positively identified, the testimonies of
Rosie Maregmen and Patricio Maregmen positively identifying appellants Montano
and de la Cruz, the testimony of Victor Uy proving the point of extortion for
ransom, and the testimony of the arresting officers, all put together,
definitely established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of all the
accused-appellants for the offense charged.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

After a careful consideration of the facts as well as the
recommendation of the trial court for executive clemency for appellants Jesus
Montano and Silvestre de la Cruz, for their spontaneous and voluntary testimony
for the prosecution, the Court is unable to make such a recommendation. It has been more than abundantly established
that they actually and actively participated in the offense charged and they
should not be allowed, after their apprehension and capture, to extricate or
exculpate themselves from its consequences by the expedient of voluntarily
testifying for the prosecution. However, let a copy of this decision be nonetheless furnished the
Honorable, the Secretary of Justice for his own evaluation on whether executive
clemency would be proper for said two (2) accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Quiason, Puno, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 10.

* Penned by Judge Luduvico Ma.
Ipac.

^[2]
Ibid., p. 53; Art. III, Sec. 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides: “. . . Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.”

^[3]
TSN, 19 December 1994; Order, dated 19 December 1986, p. 249, Original Records

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 44-47

^[5]
Rollo, pp. 177-178

^[6]
TSN, May 15, 1987, pp. 7-8, underscoring supplied

^[7]
Rollo, pp. 274-276

^[8]
CID stands for counter intelligence division of an organization referred to by
said two (2) accused-appellants as the “People’s International League of
the Philippines.” There is no evidence on record as to the connection or
relation of such organization to duly-constituted police or intelligence
authorities

^[9]
Decision, penned by RTC Judge Ludovico Ma. Ipac, dated 11 November 1987, pp.
8-9

^[10]
Brief for Appellee, Rollo, p. 281