370 Phil. 323
MENDOZA, J.:
That on or about the 19th day of August, 1985, at about 12:00 o'clock, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, (Wilfredo Sala, Sarah Judilla, Marilou Maglasang, Melquiades Acusar, Emily Gomez, and two (2) John Does), conniving and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent, did then and there kidnap one Remton Zuasola, a child one year and seven month old, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty for more than five (5) days by bringing him to Toledo City.In Crim. Case No. CBU-6027:
CONTRARY TO LAW.
That on or about the 27th day of August, 1985, at about 9:45 a.m., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with firearms, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent, and by means of violence and intimidation upon persons, to wit: by pointing their firearms at one Antonio Zuasola, driver of one Roberto Paro-an, and demanded that they be guided to the path leading to the interior of the house of said Roberto Paro-an, and for fear of his (Antonio Zuasola) life, said Antonio Zuasola obeyed the order of said accused, and once inside said house of Roberto Paro-an, with intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of said Roberto Paro-an, did then and there attempt to kidnap and detain one Roslyn Claire Paro-an, daughter of the latter, for ransom, in exchange for the life of one Remton Zuasola, son of said Antonio Zuasola, who was earlier kidnapped and detained by said accused, thus commencing the commission of the crime of Robbery with Kidnapping directly by overt acts, but which nevertheless did not produce it by reason of some (sic) cause of desistance, independent of the will of said accused, that is, by the timely detection and arrival of the PC and CIS elements.On motion of the prosecution, Melquiades Acusar was discharged from the informations and utilized as a state witness.[3] In his sworn statement executed at the PC-Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) office in Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City, on October 29, 1985, he identified the two (2) John Does referred to in the information for kidnapping as Edwin Sala and Danilo Ytang.[4] Accordingly, the information was amended by including them as accused.[5] Thereafter, all the accused were arraigned. All pleaded "not guilty" to the offenses charged.[6]
CONTRARY TO LAW.
You know, our target is the child of your boss. We only used your son as a means. We want you and your wife to get the child for us. Don't be afraid because we will never implicate you.The following day, August 22, 1985, at around 9:00 in the morning, Zuasola received another call at the Paro-an residence. It was from the same person who had earlier called him. The caller (Wilfredo Sala) wanted to know Zuasola's reply to his letter. Zuasola told the caller that it was hard to hire persons to kidnap the Paro-ans' child. The caller then asked Zuasola to simply allow the caller's three (3) companions inside the house of the Paro-ans. Fearful for the safety of his son, Zuasola agreed to the proposal.[12]
What you will do is to hire two (2) men. And you Tony [Antonio Zuasola] continue driving for your boss and look for a way, while they are not around, that you may be able to loiter and/or stay inside [their house] and then [when] the two (2) men [whom] you have hired [arrived] you will open [the door for them] and allow them to go inside and have the maids held-up. Thereafter, you will have them tied including yourself then we will have the child kidnapped. Your wife will be waiting at the gate because a taxi will be waiting. Then, you, your wife and [the] child will go straight to your house in the province because, there, we will exchange and give you your son. And you Tony, don't ever stop working with your boss to avoid suspicions. You should choose the men that you are going to hire. Those that you can trust. We will do this as early as possible so that we can turn over your son soon.
NINONG X
WHEREFORE . . . .In view of the imposition of the death penalty on Sala, Judilla, and Maglasang, these cases were elevated to this Court for automatic review.
In Cr. Case No. CBU-6028 - - finding accused Wilfredo Sala @ Fred @ Dodong, Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom, each is hereby sentenced to death and to pay costs of the proceedings. For lack of evidence, accused Edwin Sala, Danilo Ytang and Emily Gomez @ Norma Cortes, are hereby acquitted with costs de oficio.
In Cr. Case No. CBU-6027 - - finding accused Wilfredo Sala and Marilou Maglasang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted kidnapping, each is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of from 6 years and 1 day to 8 years and to pay costs. For insufficiency of evidence, Edwin Sala and Danilo Ytang are hereby acquitted with costs de oficio. For lack of evidence, Sarah Judilla and Emily Gomez @ Norma Cortez are hereby acquitted with costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY AMONG THE ACCUSED.The Court has carefully reviewed the records of these cases but has found no reason to reverse the decision of the trial court except to modify it as to the penalty imposed on accused-appellant.II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED DUE TO REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO [HER] GUILT.III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM.
The casing of the Zuasola residence by accused Maglasang and Judilla on August 15, 1985 and August 17, 1985 under the pretext of peddling clothing materials and the execution of a plan to abduct baby Remton on August 19, 1985, with a PU cab already waiting on the road outside the house of the Zuasolas, the ploy of accused Wilfredo Sala that Antonio Zuasola met an accident and was hospitalized, the buying of the food by Marilou Maglasang at an eatery which in all likelihood, could be the tip for Wilfredo to come in and perform his part of the plan, are clear indications of conspiracy. The hiding of the child in the hinterlands of Toledo by Wilfredo Sala and Marilou Maglasang exposed the conspirators' determination to clinch their basic scheme in order to accomplish their second and main target of getting the Paroan child thru exchange of the Zuasola boy for ransom.Accused-appellant was not only privy to the plan to kidnap Remton, she was also part of the ultimate objective of kidnapping Roslyn Claire Paro-an. In the morning of August 27, 1985, when the attempt to kidnap Roslyn Claire Paro-an took place, accused-appellant was at the Midland Pharmacy, in front of the Southern Islands Hospital, where her co-conspirators had gathered before three of them went to the Paro-an residence. Again, as the trial court well observed:
There is no doubt that the prosecution established with clear and strong evidence the commission of attempted kidnapping.Contrary to accused-appellant's contention, her complicity in the kidnapping of Remton and in the attempt to kidnap Roslyn Claire was established not only by the testimony of state witness Melquiades Acusar but also by the testimonies of Emeteria Siega and Jesus Canillo. Siega testified as follows:[33]
Masterminded by accused Wilfredo Sala, three men were able to enter the Paro-an compound, armed with firearms, deadly weapons and a nylon cord with the sole intention of kidnapping baby Roslyn Claire Paro-an but failed to consummate their felonious act because of the shoot out with CIS agents. Wilfredo Sala during the attempt parked his motorcycle just a few meters away from the Paro-an residence pretending to fix the spark plug of his motorcycle, while Marilou Maglasang and Melquiades Acusar were waiting in the vicinity of the scene of the crime.
Jesus Canillo's testimony continued where Emeteria Siega's testimony left off. He testified:[34]
Q And do you also know accused Sarah Judilla and Marilou Maglasang? A Yes. Q If they are ever present to day in the courtroom, please point out to the court the person who will answer the name Wilfredo Sala? A That is Wilfredo Sala (pointing to a person answering the name of Wilfredo Sala). Q How about Sarah Judilla? A That is Sarah Judilla (pointing to an elderly lady who answered the name Sarah Judilla). Q How about accused Marilou Maglasang?
A That's Marilou Maglasang (pointing to a young lady). . . . . Q On August 13, 1985, can you tell the Court where were you? A I was at home.
Q In whose house? A In the house of Antonio Zuasola and Remedios Zuasola. Q And will you please tell the Court where is this house located? A J. Osmeña Ext., Cebu City. Q Who were with you in the house of Antonio Zuasola then on that day? A I and Remton Zuasola. Q Now, while you and Remton Zuasola were in the house of Antonio Zuasola on August 13, 1985, was there an unusual incident that took place? A Yes, I could still remember.
Q Will you please tell the Court what was that unusual incident? A A young lady went to that house. Q Please point to the Court whom do you refer to as the young lady? A (Pointed to accused Marilou Maglasang). Q What was that young lady doing then at the house of Antonio Zuasola? A She asked whether it was the house of Antonio Zuasola. Q And so, what did you answer? A I said it was. Q After you answered that that is the house of Antonio Zuasola, what happened next? A She asked where were Remedios Zuasola and Antonio Zuasola Q Since you were asked where the couple was at that time, what was your answer? A I told her that they were at work. Q After you answered that Remedios Zuasola and Antonio Zuasola were at work at that time, what happened next? A She said she was selling pants materials on installment. Q And since you know that she was selling pant materials, did you buy some pant materials?
A No. Q So, after knowing that you were not buying any pant material, what happened next? A Later on she went away but said she will come back. Q Did she, in fact, go back to the house of Antonio Zuasola? A Yes. Q And when was that when she went back? A On August 15 she came back with an elderly lady. Q Can you still recall and positively identify this elderly lady if you can see that lady again?
A Yes, I can still identify her. Q And will you please identify to the Court who was this elderly lady who went with Marilou Maglasang to the house of Antonio Zuasola on August 15, 1985? A Yes, I can point to her. Q Please point to her. A (Pointed to accused Sarah Judilla). Q Please inform the Court what were Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla doing in the house of Antonio Zuasola on August 15, 1985? A They offered their pant materials which they were selling and since Remedios Zuasola was at home, they talked with her. Q Did you notice Remedios Zuasola buying pant materials from the two ladies? A No. Q So, after Remedios Zuasola declined from having any further conversation with them, what happened next? A Remedios Zuasola left for work and after about 15 meters, more or less, the two ladies left but again said they will come back later just in case Remedios Zuasola will change her mind.Q And did they, in fact, come back after August 15, 1985? A Yes, they returned to the house. Q And when was this Madame Witness if you can recall? A August 17, 1985. Q Please inform this Honorable Court who went back to the house of Antonio Zuasola?
A The same young lady and the elderly lady. Q You refer to accused Sarah Judilla as the elderly lady and Marilou Maglasang as the young lady who went back to the house on August 17, 1985? A Yes. Q And what were they doing in the house of Antonio Zuasola on August 17, 1985? A They still offered to sell on credit pant materials. However, since the sister of Antonio Zuasola, Soledad Daison was there so they were the ones who talked about the matter.Q Did you notice Soledad Daison buying pant materials from the two ladies, Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla? A No. Q Now, what happened next? A 15 minutes after, more or less, they left but again said they will come back. Q Did they, in fact, go back to the house of Antonio Zuasola as they promised? A Yes. Q And when was this? If you don't mind, please tell the court? A They went back on August 19, 1985. Q Who went back to the house of Antonio Zuasola on August 19, 1985? A The same young lady and elderly lady. Q Do you refer again to accused Sarah Judilla and Marilou Maglasang as the two ladies who went back to the house of Antonio Zuasola on August 19, 1985?
A Yes.
Q Will you please inform the Court why they went back to the house of Antonio Zuasola on August 19, 1985? A They went back in the hope that some pant materials will be bought from them. Q On that day can you inform the Court where was Remton Zuasola? A He was at home. Q While Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla were in the house of Antonio Zuasola on that day, what were they doing? Please tell the Court. A Marilou Maglasang requested that they will just get inside the house since we were already acquainted with each other. Q Once inside, what happened next? A Later on this young girl bought "puso" and some viand. Q Now, where was Sarah Judilla then, the elderly lady? A She remained in the house. Q While Marilou Maglasang was buying "puso" and some viand and Sarah Judilla was in the house, what was Sarah Judilla doing? A We talked about the hard times. Q Were Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla able to eat in the house of Antonio Zuasola? A Yes, they were able to buy "puso" and viand and they were able to eat in the house. I even gave them plates to eat on. Q While Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla were eating in the house of Antonio Zuasola, did you notice any other incident? A Yes, I noticed. Q And please inform the Court what was that incident? A A man appeared telling us that Antonio Zuasola met an accident.
Q Can you identify that man who suddenly appeared in the house of Antonio Zuasola on August 19, 1985? A I don't know him. Q Can you still identify him today if ever he is in the courtroom? A Yes, I can identify him because at present I know him already. Q Please point him out if he is in the courtroom today? A He is the one (pointing to Wilfredo Sala). Q After you were informed by Wilfredo Sala that Antonio Zuasola featured in an accident and he was in the hospital, what did you do? A I was afraid and I panicked. However, the two ladies told me that they will help me with my problem. Q After you were told by the two ladies that they will help you with the problem, what did you do next? A I was thinking of going with them and I was even scolded by Fredo (referring to Wilfredo Sala) because I took a long time to decide and he said it would seem that I cannot help in the predicament.Q Do you know the name of the hospital where Antonio Zuasola was allegedly taken after the accident? A Yes, Southern Islands Hospital. Q Now, where was Remton Zuasola then at that time? A He was with me. Q Did you, in fact, arrive at Southern Islands Hospital? A Yes. Q What mode of transportation did you and the accused and I am referring to Wilfredo Sala, Sarah Judilla and Marilou Maglasang use in going to the hospital? A PU cab. Q Who contacted a PU? A There was a waiting PU car on the road. Q Was Remton Zuasola in the PU with you and the accused when you went to the hospital? A Yes. Q When you arrived at the Southern Islands Hospital, what happened next? A While we were on board the PU Marilou Maglasang inquired what ward was Antonio Zuasola admitted and Wilfredo Sala answered Ward 5.
Q Did you, in effect go to Ward 5 of the Southern Islands Hospital? A Yes. Q At that time when you went to Ward 5 of the Southern Islands Hospital, where was Remton Zuasola? A This Remton Zuasola was left with a certain man because Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla told me to just leave the child with the man. Q Please tell the Court who was that man with whom you left Remton Zuasola per instructions of Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla? A I don't know him. Q Do you see him in Court today? A Yes. Q Please point to that man to whom you entrusted Remton Zuasola on the way to Ward 5 of the Southern Islands Hospital? A (pointed to accused Wilfredo Sala). . . . . Q Why did you entrust Remton Zuasola to accused Wilfredo Sala?
A Because this young lady told me that children are not allowed to enter the wards. Q Where was Wilfredo Sala at that time when you delivered Remton Zuasola to him? A He was at the door of the Information Section of the hospital. Q And who was with you when you went to Ward 5? A Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla accompanied me because I do not know where Ward 5 is. Q When you arrived at Ward 5 were you able to locate or find Antonio Zuasola there as told to you by Wilfredo Sala? A When I arrived at Ward 5 I did not see Antonio Zuasola. Q Since Antonio Zuasola was not in Ward 5, what did you do? A We went outside and when we reached the place where I left the child and Wilfredo Sala, they were both nowhere. Q So, what did Sarah Judilla and Marilou Maglasang do knowing that Wilfredo Sala and Remton Zuasola were no longer there?
A I said -- What shall I do when Wilfredo Sala and Remton Zuasola are not there anymore? And the two ladies told me -- We will look for them. Q And were you able to find Wilfredo Sala and Remton Zuasola? A No, because the two ladies just left me and did not come back anymore. Q Since the two ladies, Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla, did not go back and report to you, what did you do? A I went to the Fuente Osmeña Police Station to report the matter.
Melquiades Acusar's testimony gave the ending of the elaborate plot to kidnap Roslyn Claire Paro-an, detailing the participation of the conspirators, particularly that of accused-appellant. Melquiades Acusar told the court: [35]
Q One of the accused here is Marilou Maglasang also known as "Malou", do you know her also? A Yes because she was brought to our house by Wilfredo Sala. Q Will you tell the court when for the first time did you come to know Marilou Maglasang? A In the month of July 1985 although I cannot remember the date. Q When did you meet her for the first time? A July 1985. Q Where did you meet her? A They went to our house. She was together with Wilfredo Sala and she was introduced by Wilfredo to us to be his wife. Q After Marilou Maglasang was introduced by Wilfredo Sala to you as his wife, what did you say? A I told Wilfredo Sala he must be joking because I know his wife because one time he showed me a picture of their wedding. Q After you made this comment, what did Wilfredo Sala say?
A He said finally [that] Marilou was his paramour. . . . Q On August 19, 1985 more particularly in the afternoon of that day, do you recall where were you at that time and day? A I was at home. Q Where is your house located? A Awihao, Toledo City. Q What province? A Cebu. Q Will you please tell the court what was that unusual incident? A He arrived there with a child. Q To whom do you refer to as "he"? A Wilfredo Sala. Q What happened when he arrived bringing along with him a child? A He told me, "I have here a child who is my child with my paramour." Since he has no son, he stole the child and he asked my help because he will bring the child to Manila and rear him there.Q And what happened next after he told you that he will bring the child to Manila? A He told me he will just leave the child with me because he will secure money first and will get the child on Wednesday. . . . . Q So after he said he will leave the child to you and your wife, what happened next? A He left P20.00 for the milk and a nursing bottle. Q And after that what happened next? A The following day they went back to our house on August 20, 1985 which was a Tuesday. COURT: Q When you say "they" whom are you referring to? A Wilfredo Sala and Marilou Maglasang riding on a motorcycle. ATTY. SISON: Q You made mention of Marilou Maglasang, is she the same Marilou Maglasang whom you met sometime July together with Wilfredo Sala? A Yes. Q If she's in the courtroom today present, will you point to her. A (Witness pointing to accused Marilou Maglasang). . . . . Q You said that on the following day, August 20, 1985 Wilfredo Sala and Marilou Maglasang went to your house. My question is -- what were they doing there? A They went there bringing 4 cans of milk and they told me to be patient because they would not be able to get the child on Wednesday but they will get him on Monday when they shall be able to get money.Q Who, in particular, among the two, Marilou Maglasang and Wilfredo Sala who told you to be patient because they cannot get the child yet? A The two of them.
Accused-appellant Maglasang denied that she was in any way involved in the kidnapping of Remton and the attempt to kidnap Roslyn Claire Paro-an. She insisted that she was merely trying to sell textiles when she went to the residence of the Zuasolas. However, the rule in evidence which the Court has always applied is that positive identification prevails over the simple denial of the accused. Accused-appellant's denial was unsubstantiated compared to the clear, positive, and convincing testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, it is well-settled that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of the testimonies given by witnesses before it must be accorded great respect owing to its opportunity to observe and examine the witnesses' conduct and demeanor on the witness stand.[36] In this case, the trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible:[37]
Q Are you the same Melquiades Acusar who was formerly one of the accused in this case and who has been discharged as state witness? A Yes, sir. . . . . Q What about Marilou Maglasang, will you please inform this Court whether you know accused Marilou Maglasang?
A Yes, I know her. Q Will you please inform this Court why you happened to know her? A I know Marilou Maglasang because her aunt, Juliana Maglasang is the owner of the lot where we planted Tangkong. . . . . Q Now if ever you know all these accused mentioned here and if ever they are present in the courtroom today, can you point who among the persons present will answer those names?A Yes, I can point them, sir. . . . . Q Please point to accused Marilou Maglasang. A That one, sir. (Witness pointing to Marilou Maglasang) . . . . Q On August 23, 1985, can you still recall where were you then at that particular date? A Yes, I remember. Q Please inform the Court where were you on that day? A On August 23, 1985 I was working as Construction Worker at the construction located at Candaman, Mandaue City. . . . . Q What was that unusual incident, please inform the Court? A Wilfredo Sala, my neighbor, suddenly appeared at the construction site. Q What time of the day did this Wilfredo Sala appear in your job site? A At 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Q Do you know the reason why Wilfredo Sala went to see you at your place of work? A When I asked him, he told me that I will accompany him to Ermita Beach because he is going to see my brother who is living there, Ernesto Acusar. Q Please inform the Court what was his reason? A When I asked him the reason of seeing my brother at Ermita Beach, he told me that he has a friend who has a family trouble because the wife of his friend is having a paramour.Q What about that friend, what happened next, what other information did Wilfredo Sala informed you? A When I asked him who that friend is, he told me that his friend is the uncle of Marilou Maglasang. Q What about this friend who is the uncle of Marilou Maglasang, what relation has this with the intended meeting with Ernesto Acusar? A He told me that his friend wanted his son to be kidnapped because the wife of the uncle of Marilou did not ask permission to get the child from the latter. Q Did you indeed accompany Wilfredo Sala at Ermita Beach on that afternoon of August 23, 1985? A Yes, I accompanied him after 5:00 in the afternoon when I was off from my work. . . . . Q When you reached Highway Seno at Mandaue City, did you see anyone whom you know? A Yes. Q Please inform this Court who was that person? A Wilfredo Sala and Marilou Maglasang. Q And of course you are referring to Marilou Maglasang, who is one of the accused in this case? A Yes. Q From Highway Seno, Mandaue City, where did you, Wilfredo Sala and Marilou Maglasang go? A We went to Ermita Beach. Q Did you, Wilfredo Sala and Marilou Maglasang meet Ernesto Acusar there? A Yes. . . . . Q Will you please inform this Court, if you can still recall what were those questions asked by your brother to Wilfredo Sala? A My brother, Ernesto Acusar asked Wilfredo Sala who were those persons and what was that incident about? Q And then what did Wilfredo Sala answered? A Wilfredo Sala answered that the father of the child to be kidnapped is the uncle of Marilou Maglasang. Q Why, what does Wilfredo Sala wants Ernesto Acusar to do with respect to the child of the uncle of Marilou Maglasang? A Wilfredo Sala wanted the child to be kidnapped. Q During the period where Wilfredo Sala and Ernesto Acusar were talking, where was Marilou Maglasang? A Marilou Maglasang was sitting beside Wilfredo Sala. Q After that meeting between Wilfredo Sala, Ernesto Acusar, Marilou Maglasang and you, what happened next? A Marilou Maglasang also told my brother, Ernesto Acusar that you have nothing to worry because the father of the child is my uncle. Q What other information if there were still any? A Marilou Maglasang said further that they were told by her uncle to get the child. . . . . Q On the afternoon of that day, August 25, 1985, was there an unusual incident that took place in your house? A Yes, there was. Q Please inform this Court what was that incident? A After I rested at about 1:00 in the afternoon, Danilo Itang arrived and called me. Q And do you refer to Danilo Itang who is one of the accused in this case? A Yes. Q Why did Danilo Itang call you that afternoon at about 1:00 o'clock? A When I asked him his purpose in coming to my house Danilo Itang told me that he was instructed by Wilfredo Sala to inform me that Wilfredo Sala would like me to accompany him in going to Ermita Beach, Cebu City at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.Q And did you meet Wilfredo Sala at 2:00 that afternoon? A Yes. Q Where did you meet Wilfredo Sala that afternoon? A I met him in front of his house when he went out from his house with his motorcycle. Q What happened to that meeting of yours with Wilfredo Sala that very afternoon? A Wilfredo Sala told me that we will go to Ermita Beach, he will ride on his motorcycle and on my part I will just ride on a passenger jeepney towards Ermita Beach, Cebu City.Q Did you notice anybody who was with Wilfredo Sala at that time when you arrived at Ermita beach? A Yes. Q Please inform this Court who was the companion of Wilfredo Sala? A Marilou Maglasang.
Q What happened at Ermita Beach when you, Wilfredo Sala, Marilou Maglasang were there? A They were talking with my younger brother. Q Were you able to hear the discussion between Wilfredo Sala and Ernesto Acusar, your younger brother? A Yes, I heard. Q Please inform the Court what was that about? A I heard that they have said that the child is the son of the uncle of Marilou Maglasang. . . . . Q After you received this revolver Mr. Witness, what did you do with this? A Wilfredo Sala instructed me to go immediately to Ermita Beach and deliver this firearm to my younger brother. Q When you delivered this firearm to your brother, were there other persons present? A Yes. Q Please inform this Court who were those persons present at the time you gave this firearm to your brother?
A The companions of my brother. Q Do you know them? A Yes, I know them. Q Then what happened next? A Not long after Wilfredo Sala arrived. Q You said that Wilfredo Sala arrived, was Wilfredo Sala with someone else? A Yes. Q Please inform this Court who was with Wilfredo Sala at that time? A Marilou Maglasang. . . . . Q What did Wilfredo Sala and Marilou Maglasang do that morning at Ermita Beach? A Wilfredo Sala said to my brother Ernesto Acusar that: "Juan, since you have already a firearm it is up to your two companions to look for their firearms." Q Who is this "Juan"? A My brother, Ernesto Acusar.
Q After Wilfredo Sala told your brother Ernesto Acusar who is also called Juan that since he has already a firearm and it is up to his companions to look for their firearm, what happened next?A My brother told his companions to look for firearms so they left the house and went away while my brother Ernesto Acusar was left behind. Q What about Wilfredo Sala where was he? A He told my brother that he (Wilfredo Sala) will just go ahead to Southern Islands Hospital because he has with him our two neighbors at Consolacion, namely: Edwin Sala and Danilo Itang, and they might keep waiting.Q Did Wilfredo Sala left the house of Ernesto Acusar that morning? A Yes. Q Who was with him? A Marilou Maglasang. . . . . Q When you arrived in front of the waiting shed of the Southern Islands Hospital, did you see persons whom you personally knew? A Yes. Q Will you please inform this Honorable Court who were those persons you saw and whom you personally knew? A They were Wilfredo Sala, Marilou Maglasang, Edwin Sala and Danilo Itang. . . . . Q And then what happened next? A Wilfredo Sala instructed Ernesto Acusar that he (Ernesto Acusar) and his two companions will go directly to Espina Village. Q What about you, where were you then? A At first I was in front of Wilfredo Sala but later on Wilfredo Sala told me to go to the corner of Espina Village and stay there for awhile because he will follow. . . . . Q Did you in fact arrive at the corner of Espina Village? A Yes. Q Later on what happened? A Not long after Wilfredo Sala arrived. Q Did you notice someone together with Wilfredo Sala? A Yes. Q Who was that, can you tell the Court? A Marilou Maglasang. . . . . Q How long did you stay in that area? A Half an hour. Q Why were you standing or why were you there? A Wilfredo Sala told me to stand there and to see and watch the arrival of a yellow panel. Q And was there actually a yellow panel that arrived at the area where you were standing? A No, sir. And I waited there for about 30 minutes. Q What happened there after you were standing for 30 minutes already? A Since there was no yellow panel that arrived, I went across the street. I approached and asked permission from Wilfredo Sala to go home. . . . . Q After you were given permission to go home, where did you go? A Before I left the place, Wilfredo Sala told me that if they will be successful in kidnapping the child of the uncle of his paramour, he (Wilfredo Sala) will make a downpayment of P300.00 to my brother and his companions. He promised me that he will give me P1,000.00 that coming Saturday.. . . . Q After that information where did you go? A I left the place and walked towards B. Rodriguez Street. After I passed the bridge, near the TB Pavilion while walking, a CIS agent arrested me. . . . . Q When you arrived at the office of the CIS, what transpired? A I was imprisoned. Q How long were you imprisoned on that day? A When I arrived at the CIS office, it was already 10:00 in the morning, I was immediately put to prison until 5:00 in the afternoon, Wilfredo Sala and his companions were already there.. . . . Q You said that Wilfredo Sala was already there together with his companions, will you please inform the Honorable Court, who were the companions of Wilfredo Sala? A Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla and Emily Gomez. . . . . Q Do you know the reason why Wilfredo Sala, Marilou Maglasang, Sarah Judilla and Emily Gomez were with you at the CIS office, do you know the reason? A Yes. Q Please inform this court the reason why Wilfredo Sala and his companions were there? A When I asked Wilfredo Sala why her sister Sarah Judilla was implicated, he told me that it was because when they kidnapped the child of Tony, Sarah Judilla was with them.
The straight-forward testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses, and their natural and sincere demeanor on the witness stand earned the credence of this Court. Mrs. Siega who is an old woman, Antonio Zuasola and Remedios Zuasola and Jesus Canillo without batting an eyelash positively identified from among the crowd in the courtroom accused Wilfredo Sala, Marilou Maglasang and Sarah Judilla as the conspirators and their respective roles in the kidnapping of minor Remton Zuasola. Not one of these government witnesses had ill-motive against the said accused and the defense failed to show any reason why the aforementioned witnesses for the State would falsify their testimonies. On the witness stand, Canillo was seething with anger in recalling how his family and home was unnecessarily dragged by the accused in their diabolical plan.It is true that the testimony of a co-conspirator is not sufficient for the conviction of the accused unless such testimony is supported by other evidence. Such testimony comes from a polluted source and, therefore, must be received with caution. As an exception, however, the testimony of a co-conspirator, even if uncorroborated, will be considered sufficient if given in a straightforward manner and it contains details which could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought.[38] In this instant case, Melquiades Acusar first gave his extrajudicial confession implicating accused-appellant and the other accused before T/Sgt. Ariston L. Era of the PC-CIS on October 15, 1985.[39] He reiterated his confession on the witness' stand during which the defense was given the opportunity to cross-examine him. His testimony coincides with the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses, namely, Antonio Zuasola, Emeteria Siega, and Jesus Canillo. As the trial court noted, Melquiades' testimony was straightforward, spontaneous, and sincere. We have no reason to reverse these findings of the trial court. We hold that it correctly convicted her of the kidnapping of Remton Zuasola and the attempted kidnapping of Roslyn Claire Paro-an.
Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:The elements of the kidnapping have been established by the prosecution in Criminal Case No. CBU-6028, to wit: (a) accused-appellant is a private individual; (b) she kidnapped or detained Remton and deprived the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal; and (d) in the commission of the offense, the following circumstances were present, namely, (i) the kidnapping lasted for more than five (5) days and (ii) the person kidnapped or detained was a minor.[44]The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
- If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days;
- If it shall have been committed simulating public authority;
- 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;
- If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female, or a public officer.