PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALFREDO ENANORIA, (DETAINED), ONE ALIAS TOTONG AND ONE ALIAS BOY, AND ALIAS EBOY WHOSE TRUE NAME IS RODRIGO FEROLINO, ACCUSED,…

This is an appeal interposed by Alfredo Enanoria, from the October
31, 1989 decision^[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, 11th Judicial Region, Branch II, in
Criminal Case No. 16302-88, which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Kidnapping with Murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of P110,000.00
for death and burial expenses, and P100,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the
costs (Rollo, p. 22).

At around 9:00 o’clock in the morning of May 7, 1988, while he
was at the Davao Medical Center where he was brought after his arrest. Enanoria executed an “ante-mortem”
statement before P/Cpl. Cerilo S. Solana, Jr. in the presence of Mayor Duterte
and Lt. Col. Calida. Although he
claimed that he would still survive inspite of his wound, he admitted having
been shot because he was involved in the kidnapping of Mrs. Dakudao. He informed the police that one alias Amil
shot Mrs. Dakudao and that they were not able to get the P50,000.00 ransom they
had demanded (Original Record, p. 6).

Four days later or on May 11, 1988, Enanoria executed a sworn
statement before P/Cpl. Solana at the Talomo Patrol Station of the Davao City
Metrodiscom. After he had been apprised
of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel of his own choice,
he admitted involvement in the kidnapping of Mrs. Dakudao. He claimed, however, that he did not know
that he was participating in a kidnapping as he was merely picked up in
Tunggol, Pagalungan, Maguindanao by Amil and one alias Totong. According to Enanoria, Amil and Totong each
carried a .38 caliber revolve and it was Amil who shot Mrs. Dakudao only once
at around 1:30 a.m. of May 7, 1988 (Exh. “1”; Original Record, p. 7).

Hence, Enanoria, one alias Totong, one alias Boy and Rodrigo
Ferolino alias Eboy were charged in an Information filed on May 12, 1988 by 4th
Assistant City Fiscal Barbara C.
Pioquinto, which reads as follows:

“The undersigned accuses the above-named accused of the crime
of KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER under Article 267 and 248 in relation to Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

“That on or about May 7, 1988 and sometime prior thereto, in
the city of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-mentioned accused, being then private individuals, conspiring,
confederating together and helping one another, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, for the purpose of extorting money from one Lea Dakudao and her
family in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or of killing the
said Lea Dakudao if the amount demanded could not be given, kidnapped, carried
away, brought to Maguindanao and deprived said Lea Dakudao of her liberty
without authority of law, against her will and consent; that on the occasion of
said kidnapping and to enable them to carry out their purpose, the said accused
in pursuance of their conspiracy brought back aforesaid Lea Dakudao to Davao
City and willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, with
treachery and evident premeditation shot her (Lea Dakudao) with the use of
firearm thereby inflicting upon her (Lea Dakudao) a mortal wound which
caused her death.” (Original Record, p. 1)

On June 27, 1988, Enanoria executed a supplementary sworn
statement before T/Sgt. Florante M. Rotor of the PC-CIS. Assisted by Atty. Jonathan M. Jocom of the
CLAO XI, Enanoria was once again apprised of his constitutional rights before
he executed the statement which was sworn before 4th Assistant City Fiscal
Antonina B. Escovilla.

In said statement, Enanoria related that he joined the group of
Rodrigo Ferolino alias Eboy, his first degree cousin, in November 1987. The other leaders of the group were Sgt.
Bibit of the Philippine Army assigned with the 27th IB stationed at Bansalan,
Davao del Sur and one alias Lugum. The
group lured Enanoria with “instant money” as they had kidnapped a
certain Leong and one Angel who respectively paid P50,000.00 and P200,000.00
ransom money.

According to Enanoria, Sgt. Bibit hatched the kidnapping plan as
he had financial problems. It was also
Sgt. Bibit who gave Eboy a hand grenade but Sgt. Bibit did not participate in
the kidnapping of Mrs. Dakudao. In the
afternoon of May 6, 1988, when they posted themselves at the Park and Shop in
Bajada, Davao City, they were armed not only with a hand grenade because Amil
and Totong were each armed with a .38 caliber revolver.

Enanoria claimed that Eboy instructed Amil and Totong to look for
a new car which Enanoria would drive. Hence, when they saw Mrs. Dakudao boarding the Ford Laser car, Amil and
Totong also boarded it and Enanoria drove the car up to the corner of J.P.
Laurel and Cabaguio Avenue where Eboy was waiting. Eboy then drove the car to Tunggol, Maguindanao.

Enanoria narrated that on the way, Eboy introduced himself as
Commander Bobby to Mrs. Dakudao and they discussed the ransom to be paid. Upon reaching Tunggol, Mrs. Dakudao told
Eboy that she had P50.000.00 in cash at home. Having agreed on the ransom, the group headed back to Davao City after
staying in Tunggol for around twenty minutes only.

Upon reaching Davao City, they stopped at the gasoline station in
front of the Tourist Lodge along MacArthur Avenue. Totong called up the Dakudao residence and when they learned that
Mr. Dakudao was not around, Mrs. Dakudao volunteered to get the money
herself. The group then proceeded to
Bajada but Eboy just parked the car along the highway because Mrs. Dakudao told
them that there was a checkpoint manned by a security guard before reaching their
residence. Eboy then decided to return
to Tunggol but upon reaching Matina, they saw a roadblock which had been put up
by the police. Eboy did not heed the
warning of the police. Instead, he
stepped on the accelerator of the car thereby prompting the police to open fire
at them. The car stopped upon reaching a bridge because its tires were
flat. As they were going out of the
car, Amil gave Enanoria a .38
caliber revolver and they all escaped in different directions. Enanoria, however, was arrested the police a
few hours thereafter (Exh. “A”; Record of Exhibits, pp. 1-4).

When arraigned, Enanoria, who was the only one apprehended by the
authorities, entered a plea of not guilty to the crime charged (Original
Record. p. 21).

At the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented the following
witnesses:

Sgt. Florante M. Rotor, then assigned
as the Chief Investigator at the 11th CIS District. He testified that he personally investigated Enanoria on June 27,
1988 and that before proceeding with the said investigation, he first apprised
Enanoria of his constitutional rights particularly his right to counsel of his
own choice. When Enanoria said that he
could not afford to hire one, Sgt. Rotor offered to contact the Citizen’s Legal
Assistance Office (CLAO), which, in turn, designated Atty. Jocom to assist
Enanoria. Upon Atty. Jocom’s arrival at
the CIS Office, Sgt. Rotor introduced him to Enanoria and allowed them to
confer with each other for about five minutes. After Enanoria had agreed to have Atty. Jocom as his counsel, the
investigation commenced. Sgt. Rotor
asked questions and Enanoria answered in the Cebuano­-Visayan dialect. The sworn statement, however, which was
typed by Sgt. Rotor simultaneously, was in the English language, having been
translated by Sgt. Rotor during the investigation. Enanoria and Atty. Jocom thereafter signed the statement in one
another’s presence. Sgt. Rotor then
brought Enanoria to the Office of the City Fiscal for the administering of the
oath.

On cross-examination, Sgt. Rotor said that Enanoria was brought
to the CIS Office after he was discharged from the hospital where he was
treated for his gunshot wounds. As
Enanoria appeared to be strong enough by then, Sgt. Rotor did not ask about the
former’s injuries. Sgt. Rotor also
disclosed that Enanoria had previously executed a sworn statement before the
Talomo Police Station and that he was able to read a copy of the same which was
furnished to their office. Although he
could not recall its contents, he remembered that since the sworn statement
appeared to be inadequate, he took Enanoria’s supplemental statement during his
reinvestigation.

Sgt. Rotor affirmed that he informed Enanoria of his
constitutional rights, namely, the right to remain silent, the right to counsel
of his own choice, that if he could not afford to have one, the government
could provide him a lawyer to assist him in the investigation, and that
whatever he would say could be used as evidence against him. Sgt. Rotor likewise confirmed that Enanoria voluntarily
gave his statement and that he (Sgt. Rotor) did not require Enanoria to sign a
waiver considering that he was already assisted by counsel. The investigation lasted for approximately
two hours. Four days later, Sgt. Rotor
took Enanoria, then detained at their office, to the Fiscal’s Office. Then he waited outside and after the oath
had been administered, he brought Enanoria back to the CIS Office for
detention. (Hearing of August 15, 1988;
TSN, pp. 4-33)

Pfc. Aquino Serenio, assigned at the Talomo
Police Station. He testified that he
was on duty at around 1:30 o’clock in the morning of May 7, 1988 when he
received a flash alarm relayed by the Metrodiscom Operation Center (MOC)
stating that four unidentified armed men were spotted on board a red car with plate number
LAG-312. Acting on the said alarm,
Station Commander P/Lt. Reynaldo Obrero immediately dispatched him together
with several other police officers to put up a road block to intercept the vehicle.

As the car was allegedly coming from the poblacion and heading
south, Pfc. Serenio’s team set up a road block in front of Matina Mini Market
in Davao City. Not long thereafter,
they saw a red car fast approaching so they signalled the driver to stop the
vehicle. The driver, however, ignored
the signal and the car went through the road block almost hitting one of the
police officers. Several gunshots were
fired at them from the red car when they pursued it with their mobile
unit. Their team successfully fired at
the tires of the car thus forcing it to stop near the Balusong Bridge. A lone gunshot was then heard from inside
the car and then the passengers scampered in different directions. The team quickly approached the car and
there they saw a seriously wounded lady on the front seat. The driver of the mobile unit, Pat. Jickain,
rushed the lady to the Davao Doctors Hospital for treatment while he (Pfc.
Serenio) and the others stayed behind to search for the remaining passengers.

Eventually, they found Enanoria in the house of a certain Dado at
Muslim Village, Central Park Subdivision in Bangkal, Davao City. They recovered a .38 caliber snubnose
revolver, i.e., a small-barreled gun, from Enanoria who was subsequently
brought to the Davao Medical Center due to a gunshot wound at the back. Pfc. Serenio later learned that the lady,
then identified as Mrs. Lea Dakudao, expired at the hospital while Enanoria was
investigated by P/Cpl. Cerilo Solana at the Talomo Police Station. In court, Pfc. Serenio positively identified
Enanoria as one of the alleged kidnappers.

When cross-examined, Pfc. Serenio said that he did not know
whether there were other persons on board the red car aside from the reported
four armed men. He also admitted that
he and the rest of his team were all armed with M16 armalite rifles and that
they all fired their weapons when the passengers of the car first opened fire
at them. Pfc. Serenio stressed that
their team directed their gunfire at the tires of the car to forcibly stop it
but the car did stop when it reached the Balusong Bridge, about 200 meters from
the roadblock. When they inspected the
car, Pfc. Serenio saw that both rear tires of the car were flat. Thereafter, the car was brought to the
police station for safekeeping and investigation.

Pfc. Serenio added that he saw the lady whose back was bleeding,
apparently alive but unconscious. One
male passenger jumped to the river at the right side while the two others, one
of whom was Enanoria, proceeded to the left side of the bridge leading to a
grassy area. Nobody fired their guns
while Pfc. Serenio’s team chased the said passengers. Finally, Pfc. Serenio admitted that their team was not subjected
to paraffin tests nor their rifles to ballistic examination (Hearing of August
15, 1989; TSN, pp. 34-58).

Atty. Jonathan Jocom, a lawyer assigned at
the CLAO, declared that on June 27, 1988 at around 8:30 o’clock in the morning,
their office received a call from the Criminal Investigation Unit of the CIS,
requesting for a lawyer to assist a person who was about to give a statement
during custodial investigation. In
response thereto, Atty. Jocom proceeded to the CIS Camp Leonor in Davao
City. After he was introduced by Sgt.
Rotor, Atty. Jocom conferred with Enanoria. The latter told him that he had already made a previous statement and
that he was willing to give a supplemental one to the police authorities. Atty. Jocom, in turn apprised Enanoria of
his constitutional rights and advised him not to make any statement or to sign
the same if he was unsure of what he wanted to say. Despite such advice, Enanoria willingly underwent investigation,
in the presence of Atty. Jocom, for about two hours. The investigation sheet was in English so Sgt. Rotor translated
the same into the Cebuano-Visayan dialect which not only Enanoria but also
Atty. Jocom knew since he grew up in Davao City. After the investigation, he and Enanoria signed the sworn
statement.

On cross-examination, Atty. Jocom stated that he did not know
Enanoria prior to the investigation yet the latter welcomed his
assistance. He informed Enanoria of the
seriousness of the charge but he observed that Enanoria was ‘overwhelming (sic)
to tell the truth’ and that he (Enanoria) was ‘really positive’ about his statements. In fact, Enanoria did not consult him at all
about his answers to the investigator’s questions as he made them all
voluntarily. Lastly, Atty. Jocom stated
that the translation which Sgt. Rotor made relating to the investigation was
substantially correct (Hearing of August 16, 1989; TSN, pp. 5-18).

Cpl. Cerilo Solana, Jr., assigned at the
Talomo Police Station. He testified
that he was also on duty on May 7, 1988 when he was instructed by their Station
Commander, Police Lt. Reynaldo Obrero, to investigate the shooting incident
which occurred in the early dawn of that day. He was informed that a certain Alfredo Enanoria, one of the suspects in
the kidnapping of one Lea Dakudao, was apprehended and then confined at the
Davao Regional Hospital due to gunshot wounds. He immediately proceeded to the said hospital and he saw Enanoria being treated
at the emergency ward.

Cpl. Solana, believing then that Enanoria was in a serious
condition and could die anytime, asked questions and prepared what he
considered as Enanoria’s ante-mortem statement. Enanoria, however, survived and was
subsequently discharged from the hospital after which he (Enanoria) was brought
to the Talomo Police Station. Again,
the Station Commander directed Cpl. Solana to take down Enanoria’s statement. When interviewed, Enanoria disclosed to Cpl.
Solana the names of his companions as one alias Totong and the other as Amil,
who died after having been apprehended in Digos, Davao City.

Upon cross-examination, Cpl. Solana said that based on his
investigation, he learned that Lea Dakudao died while on board the car which
sustained several bullet holes mostly at its rear portion. He said, however, that he did not know the
cause of the victim’s death nor did he try to find out the same inasmuch as his
purpose then was only to investigate the suspect in the said incident. He
did interview Enanoria twice – first at the hospital after Solano’s arrest, and
second, when Enanoria had been brought to the police station. On the second occasion, Enanoria readily
admitted that he was with a group on that fateful day. Enanoria specified Alias Totong and Alias
Amil, who allegedly shot the victim once. Enanoria claimed, however, that he was not involved in the kidnapping of
the victim. Since the referral of the
case to the Criminal Investigation Service, Cpl. Solana no longer coordinated with
the said office (Hearing of August 16, 1989; TSN, pp. 24-37).

Dr. Jose T. Pagsaligan, a medico-legal officer assigned
at the Regional Health Office in Davao City. He testified that on May 7, 1988, he examined the body of Lea Dakudao,
then alreadly lifeless, at the Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes. According to his findings, the victim died
of shock secondary to severe hemorrhage due to gunshot wounds. More particularly, Dr. Pagsaligan stated in
his Autopsy Report No. 004-88 (Exhibit “B”, Record of Exhibits, p. 5)
that Lea Dakudao sustained two gunshot wounds, both of which were caused by
bullets presumably fired from a .38 caliber revolver. The bullet which caused the first wound entered through the right
side of the back just above the
waistline and its slug was recovered in the omentum, a part of the abdominal
cavity. That which caused the second
wound, which was more fatal, entered through the right side of the buttock and
was retrieved from the ascending colon of the large intestines. Dr. Pagsaligan opined that the assailant
could have been in a higher position than the victim when he fired the first
shot because of the bullet’s downward trajectory. Aside from the gunshot wounds, Dr. Pagsaligan noted the presence
of multiple pelvic bone fragments and 1000 cc. of blood in the abdominal
cavity, indicating internal hemorrhage caused by the severance of the iliac
artery. There was also a laceration at
the left eyebrow as well as gunpowder burns at the right scapular area
extending to the right side of the neck. Dr. Pagsaligan issued the corresponding death certificate.

When cross-examined, Dr. Pagsaligan said that the two slugs he
recovered from the body of the victim and which were endorsed to Sgt. Saradon
for safekeeping were of two kinds, one was of bronze or lead material while the
other was more of copper. Thus, it was
possible that two diferent firearms of the same caliber were used (Hearing of
August 21, 1989; TSN, pp. 4-57).

Ma. Elenita Jimenez, a supervising clerk
working at the local civil registrar’s office in Davao City, merely confirmed
as authentic the signatures of Remedios Salingay and Teresita Fuentes who both
had certified to the correctness of the death certificate presented as evidence
before the court (Hearing of August 21, 1989; TSN, pp. 58-60).

Mr. Roberto Dakudao, Jr., a
businessman and the surviving spouse of the victim narrated that on May 6,
1988, at around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, he arrived home from the golf
course. He saw his 32-year old wife,
Lea, preparing to attend the 5:30 o’clock mass at the Davao Redemptorist
Church. Lea then left for the said
church aboard one of their family cars, a
red Ford Laser with plate no. LBT312 which she herself drove. Mr. Dakudao thereafter took a nap and woke
up at almost 9:00 o’clock in the evening.

As he normally expected his wife to come home within an hour
after the mass, he was surprised to know that she was not yet around by
then. This prompted him to call up their relatives and friends hoping
that he would be informed of Lea’s whereabouts. Nobody knew where she was. So, he decided to take the other family car with their driver in order
to trace back the possible route that Lea could have taken and to see if she had met an accident or
had had a car breakdown. He still
failed to locate her.

In desperation, he called up his sister-in-law, Catalina ‘Teling’
Santos-Dakudao who, being the daughter of Luis Santos, had ‘good connections’
with the military. Teling then
requested for police assistance and a few minutes after, Lt. Pintak met with
Mr. Dakudao. Finally, at around 1:00
o’clock in the morning of the next day, May 7, 1988, Mr. Dakudao left for home
with his driver. When they were near
the DASI Motors, they realized that the missing Ford Laser car had just passed
by on the other lane. Thus, they
immediately turned around and trailed the said car which subsequently parked at
about 150 meters away from the Shell Gasoline Station. Mr. Dakudao instructed his driver to
likewise park their car at the Tourist Lodge which was also near the said
station and there he called Teling to inform her what had happened.

As he was getting out of the lodge, he saw his wife with one or
two male companions about to board the Ford Laser car again. Mr. Dakudao presumed that they, too, made a
phone call at the station. The car then
sped off again heading for the south. Mr. Dakudao and his driver would have followed suit once more but at
that moment, a Ford Fiera with military men on board passed by. Thus, Mr. Dakudao signalled to them to
pursue the Ford Laser car.

The Ford Fiera did trail the said car for some time with Mr.
Dakudao and his driver close behind. Somewhere along the way, the Fiera overtook the Laser which quickly made
a U-turn at the Harana area in Matina, Davao City. Mr. Dakudao cautioned his driver not to appear obvious in
following the Laser so it took them a while before they also made a
U-turn. By then, they already lost
track of the Laser. Mr. Dakudao asked
to be brought to the Tourist Lodge to make another phone call to Teling but Lt.
Pintak, who also went there, instructed him to call up a certain number instead
and request the police to look out for the Laser car with four armed men and a
hostage. Thereafter, Mr. Dakudao and
his driver tried to locate the Laser once again. When they failed to see it, they returned to the Tourist Lodge at
almost 3:30 o’clock in the morning.

As soon as Mr. Dakudao arrived there, he was informed that his
wife had been shot and was rushed to the Davao Doctors Hospital for
treatment. He proceeded to the said
hospital and there he learned that his wife had passed away leaving him and
their three children. On further
questions, Mr. Dakudao said that he transported her wife’s remains and had her
interred in Bacolod, her place of birth. He spent around P80,000.00 for the purpose. In court, he pointed to Enanoria whom he said was apprehended and
then detained by the CIS agents as one
of those responsible for the kidnapping of his wife.

When cross-examined, Mr. Dakudao revealed that before 12:30
o’clock in the morning, while he was still at Teling’s house, he called
home. He was told by their helper that
there were two strange callers who asked if it was his (Mr. Dakudao’s) house
and when it was so confirmed, the callers abruptly hanged the phone. Mr. Dakudao supposed that the callers could
have been the kidnappers trying to contact him so he decided to go home. He and his driver were on their way home
when they saw the Ford Laser and subsequently tailed it. As the rear windshield was slightly tinted,
Mr. Dakudao admitted that all he could see then was a woman whom he presumed to be his wife sitting at the front
seat and at least two male passengers sitting at the back seat of the
Laser. When it stopped at the Shell
station, he did not approach the said car for fear that the male passengers
could be armed. Mr. Dakudao said that
the police authorities informed him of Enanoria’s arrest (Hearing of August 21,
1989; TSN, pp. 61-78).

Romeo Borja, the family driver of
the Dakudaos, simply corroborated the testimony of Mr. Dakudao in its material
points adding that the Ford Laser which had several bullet holes was
subsequently brought to the DAMOSA for repair (Hearing of August 21, 1989; TSN,
pp. 81-88).

4th Assistant City Fiscal Antonina Escovilla
of Davao City, declared that Enanoria was brought to her office on June 1,
1988. When Enanoria was left alone with
her in the room, she asked him under oath to tell the truth. Utilizing the Cebuano-Visayan dialect which
Enanoria speaks, Fiscal Escovilla apprised him of his rights to remain silent
and to engage the services of counsel of his own choice. She also informed him that anything he would
give or say in the investigation could be used in evidence against him. After such precautions, Fiscal Escovilla
proceeded to translate the sworn statement to Enanoria who confirmed the truth
of its contents. When she asked if he
was intimidated or forced into executing the statement, Enanoria said he did it
voluntarily and with the active assistance of a CLAO lawyer of his choice. There was not even a hint from Enanoria that
he had been maltreated before or during the investigation.

When cross-examined, Fiscal Escovilla said that Enanoria, who was
physically well at that time, stayed in her office for about 15 to 20 minutes,
during which time she substantially translated his sworn statement. Enanoria’s answers then were coherent and
when Fiscal Escovilla asked if the signatures in the statement were his,
Enanoria answered affirmatively. After
Fiscal Escovilla was through with him, the escorts were called in to take
Enanoria again into their custody (Hearing of August 31, 1989; TSN, pp. 22-25).

Mrs. Fortune Castillo, a resident of Davao
City, claimed that she was acquainted with the late Mrs. Lea Dakudao, whom she
last saw alive on May 6, 1988 at the Davao Redemptorist Church located at
Bajada, Davao City. Mrs. Castillo said
that like her, Mrs. Dakudao regularly attended the daily mass scheduled at 5:30
o’clock in the afternoon held at the said church. On that fateful day, as Mrs. Castillo usually sat at the last
pew, she saw Mrs. Dakudao enter the church alone at about 5:30 o’clock in the
afternoon. They heard the First Friday
mass together with the other mass-goers until it was over at 6:20 o’clock in
the evening. Apparently, that was the
last time she would see Mrs. Dakudao, for the following day, Mrs. Castillo
attended her wake at the Dakudao residence (Hearing of August 31, 1989; TSN,
pp. 27-33).

The defense, on the other hand, interposed denial and presented
only two witnesses – the accused himself and his common-law wife.

Alfredo Enanoria, accused herein, jobless and a
resident of Tungol, Pagalungan, Maguindanao, testified that at about 9:00
o’clock in the evening of May 6, 1988, he was at the purok near their
house in Tunggol when a car stopped
in front of him. Logum who was on board
the said car, invited Enanoria to go with him to Davao for a ‘happening’. Enanoria thereafter changed his clothes and
boarded the car with five other passengers already inside, four of whom were
male and one was a female seated in front. Enanoria claimed that except from Logum, the driver and the other
pasengers were not known to him. They
then proceeded to Davao City and arrived there at around 12:45 o’clock in the
morning of May 7, 1988. They stopped
momentarily at a gasoline station near the Tourist Lodge to buy motor oil,
after which Logum remarked “Pa-Bajada tayo, Mrs.” referring to the
lady who said yes.

They did reach Bajada and then the car stopped again for about
fifteen minutes at a crossing. At that
point, Logum instructed the driver to turn back towards Cotabato. When they were near the Talomo Market,
Enanoria saw several police officers some twenty meters away but he did not
notice if there was a road block. Logum
ordered the driver to proceed past the lawmen who eventually strafed the
car. Enanoria immediately ducked on the
car floor to take cover. He said he did
not know whether Logum had a gun then and he himself did not have one at any
time. The car was hit at its front and
rear mirrors and then he heard the lady cry out in Tagalog, “Natamaan
ako!”. Enanoria said he was also
hit at his right knee and at the right side of his back. Logum and another companion were also hit.

The car was pursued by and fired upon by the lawmen on board a
mobile unit. When the car finally
stopped at the Balusong Bridge due to its flat tires, Enanoria and his
companions scampered to different directions. Enanoria said he went to the left side and found a well. He was taking a bath at the well when the
muzzle of an armalite rifle hit his wound at the back. Upon turning around, he saw several police
officers who later mauled him. They
were about to ‘finish’ him but he pleaded for his life and assured them that he
would tell the truth.

Enanoria was then brought to the police station and subsequently
to the regional hospital for treatment. He stayed there until the next day, May 8, 1988. After his discharge in the afternoon, he was
brought again to the police station. A
police officer who investigated him asked him to admit that he was one of the
kidnappers. Enanoria said he was not
apprised at all of his constitutional rights and that he did not understand the
contents of the written statement which was presented to him as it was in
English and was not translated into a dialect which he knew.

Enanoria also said that he collapsed before the statement was completed. When he regained consciousness, Cpl. Solana
asked him to sign the statement. Afterwards, Enanoria was transferred to the CIS office. He could not recall if he was also
investigated by Sgt. Rotor at the said office but when the supplementary
statement prepared by the latter was shown to him. Enanoria affirmed that the signatures thereon were his. He said, however, that he was forced to sign
the statement by Sgt. Rotor upon the order of Lt. Macao. He could not remember if that was the same
document which he signed before Atty. Jocom at the CLAO. Enanoria added that he met Atty. Jocom for the
first time at the CIS office and the latter simply left as soon as he told him
(Enanoria) that it was up to him to give a statement to the police
authorities. The second time was at the
CLAO where he was asked to sign a document.

When cross-examined, Enanoria said that he used to work for the
MINTRANCO Bus Line as a conductor. One
of their practices then was to accommodate persons asking for free rides for
fear that they could be NPA or MNLF members. Logum was one such person whom Enanoria obliged and then came to know
later. During Logum’s subsequent rides,
Enanoria admittedly conversed with him, briefly though, as he was always busy
with his job. Enanoria thereafter resigned
from the said company.

On the night of that fateful day, Logum invited him to a
‘happening’, i.e., to a disco and he acquiesced after changing his
clothes. Enanoria claimed that he never
knew the names of Logum’s companions as during the course of their trip to
Davao City, they addressed each other only as “bro”. He was not introduced to Logum’s companions
either and he did not ask Logum to do so for he was shy. Enanoria inquired though why they had a
female companion and Logum merely told him that she was also invited to the
disco. The lady appeared unafraid and
happy although the light inside the car was off. Then they proceeded to Davao City and reached the place at past
midnight. They stopped, however, at
Kinuskusan and then at Digos, when the driver and another male companion
answered the call of nature.

Upon further questions, Enanoria admitted that he knew how to
drive a car or any vehicle but he denied that he knew about the
kidnapping. He said that he could not
remember if a .38 caliber pistol
was recovered from him while he was taking a bath at the well and he could not
remember, too, if there was a house near the same well. He also denied having been arrested at the
house of a Muslim. Likewise, Enanoria
could not recall the name of the fiscal before whom he took his oath, what he
told the fiscal and whether the said fiscal was a man or a woman.

On redirect examination, Enanoria claimed that the reason why he
could not remember having appeared before the administering officers was that
he was not yet feeling well at that time (Hearing of August 29, and 30, 1989;
TSN, pp. 5-44 and 2-34).

For its second and last witness, the defense presented Madelon
Taborada, Enanoria’s common-law wife. She testified that on May 5, 1988, she went to Tunggol with Enanoria to
get some food provisions. The following
day, Taborada left him behind as she headed back for Davao City. On May 7, 1988, a woman informed her that
Enanoria was brought to the regional hospital. So, on that very night, she proceeded there but the police guards did
not allow her to see him. It was only
on the following morning that she saw Enanoria. He spoke inaudibly, obviously in pain because of his wounds. Taborada said that she did not know what
caused his wounds and that Enanoria was discharged from the hospital on May 9,
1988 (Hearing of August 30, 1992; TSN, pp. 37-41).

On October 31, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision
finding Alfredo Enanoria guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping with
murder under Arts. 267 and 248 in relation to Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code
and imposing on him the aforementioned penalty.

Hence, the present appeal.

The brief for appellant was filed on May 22, 1991 (Rollo, p. 38)
while that of appellee was filed on July 23, 1991 (Ibid., p. 104).

In his brief, appellant assigns the following errors:

I

The trial court erred in convicting the
accused-appellant as co-principal in a conspiracy to commit kidnapping with
murder in the absence of evidence and without proving the existence of a conspiracy.

II

The trial court erred
in admitting the extrajudicial confession of the accused-appellant in evidence
and which coerced confession was made the sole basis for the conviction of the
accused-appellant.

(p. 57, Rollo)

Enanoria’s counsel asserts that the extrajudicial statement which
was allegedly the only piece of evidence against his client, was obtained under
duress and in violation of the latter’s right to counsel and therefore, it
should have been disregarded. Appellant’s counsel insists that had the court properly disregarded his
extrajudicial confession, the cause of the prosecution would have been reduced
to nothing as the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that Lea Dakudao
had indeed been kidnapped and that Enanoria participated therein. As conspiracy was not established, Enanoria
could not be held liable for the crime charged.

A careful evaluation of the evidence on record reveals, however,
that such contentions are baseless and utterly devoid of merit.

Firstly, the rule is well-settled that a confession is presumed
to be voluntary and that the confessant, who bears the burden of proving
otherwise (People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-32661, July 20, 1982, 115 SCRA 184;
People v. Estevan, G.R. No. 69676, June 4, 1990, 186 SCRA 34), must duly
substantiate his claim that the admissions in his affidavit are untrue and
unwillingly executed. Bare assertions
will certainly not suffice to overturn the presumption. Considering however, that voluntariness is
largely determined by external manifestations, the Court has laid down several
factors indicative thereof. Thus,
“where the defendants did not present evidence of compulsion, or 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 when they
did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their
claim” (People v. Mada-I Santalani, G.R. No. L-29979, September 28, 1979,
93 SCRA 3317), the defendants are deemed to have voluntarily confessed. Still another indicium of voluntariness is
the disclosure of details in the confession which could have been known only to
the declarant (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-31900, August 6, 1979, 92 SCRA
465; Estacio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 75363, March 6, 1990, 183 SCRA
12). Significantly, all these are
present in the case at bar.

It is worthy to note as well that the extrajudicial statement was
subscribed and sworn to before Asst. City Fiscal Escovilla, who herself
extensively testified that she translated the contents of the statement and
inquired into the spontaneity of its execution. There is no showing whatsoever that she was actuated by any
reason other than her desire to perform the solemn task of having affiant
voluntarily and intelligently swear to the truth of his statement (People v.
Del Pilar, G.R. No. 86360, July 28, 1990, 188 SCRA 37).

Enanoria’s claim that his right to counsel was violated does not
hold water either. It is already beyond
dispute that he was actively assisted by a lawyer in the person of Atty.
Jocom. The latter’s presence adequately
fulfilled the constitutional requirement. It must be reiterated at this point that the right to counsel is
intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit
something false. The lawyer, however,
should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Verily, whether it is an extrajudicial
statement or testimony in open court, the purpose is always the ascertainment
of truth (People v. Layuso, G.R. No. 69210, July 5, 1989, 175 SCRA 52).

Based on the foregoing, there can be no other conclusion than
that Enanoria’s extrajudicial statement is admissible as evidence. As it sets out in detail his participation
in the kidnapping and the eventual murder of Mrs. Dakudao, Enanoria’s
responsibility has been pinpointed. However, Enanoria’s extrajudicial confession is not the sole basis for
his conviction. He has been positively
identified by Pfc. Aquino Serenio as one of those who scampered out of the Ford
Laser car when it stopped due to flat tires. Enanoria could have disproved this testimony but he failed to do so. Neither did he present proof that Pfc. Serenio had a motive or reason for his inculpation. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, his
flight from the scene of the crime strongly indicated his guilt (People v. Rey,
G.R. No. 80089, April 13, 1989, 172 SCRA 149).

Conspiracy has also been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the
concerted action of Enanoria and his companions (People v. Cruz, G.R. No.
86217. October 31, 1990, 191 SCRA
127). As Enanoria admitted in his
supplemental sworn statement, in kidnapping Mrs. Dakudao, his group adopted the
same modus operandi they had used in other kidnappings: they would wait for the owner to board his
or her car, get in the car with him or her and bring the owner to either
Tunggol or Kabacan, North Cotabato where Eboy had a house (Exh. “A-2”).

The crime committed is kidnapping for ransom for which the death
penalty is imposable under the last paragraph of Art. 267 of the Revised Penal
Code. Since the death penalty has been
constitutionally abolished, the penalty imposable on the appellant is reclusion perpetua.

There is no proof that Mrs. Lea Dakudao was kidnapped for the
purpose of killing her so as to make the offenses one of kidnapping for ransom
and murder a complex crime. What is
evident is the fact that the killing was perpetrated, apparently as an
afterthought after the Ford Laser car had been rendered immobile, while Mrs.
Dakudao was in the custody of armed men which included Enanoria. Hence, the killing is qualified by abuse of
superiority and with the aid of armed men. That it was committed while the Ford Laser car was being shot at by then
pursuing police does not erase the crime there being proof that the bullets
which killed Mrs. Dakudao came from a .38 caliber revolver like the gun
retrieved from appellant during his arrest. There being conspiracy, appellant is also liable for murder
notwithstanding his claim that it was Amil who shot Mrs. Dakudao. For murder, Enanoria should suffer the separate
penalty of reclusion perpetua, the medium period of
the penalty of reclusion temporal maximum to death, in the
absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances (Arts. 248 & 64(1),
Revised Penal Code).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, appellant Alfredo Enanoria is hereby
convicted of the separate crimes of kidnapping for ransom under Art. 267 and
murder under Art. 248 for which crimes he shall suffer two penalties of reclusion
perpetua which he shall serve successively in accordance with Art. 70 of
the Revised Penal Code. He shall also
indemnify the heirs of Leah Nora Rita Puentevella-Dakudao not only the amount
of P80,000.00 for burial expenses but also the amount of P50,000.00 in
accordance with recent jurisprudence.

SO ORDERED.

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

Nocon, J., on leave.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Nicasio O. de Jesus