THIRD DIVISION On July 28, 1993, Branch 148 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, presided

over by the Honorable Oscar B. Pimentel, rendered judgment in this wise,

[G.R. No. 122487. December 12, 1997] convicting accused-appellants Berroya, Vienes, and Mateo:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SUPT. REYNALDO
WHEREFORE, premises considered:
BERROYA, SPO4 JOSE VIENES and FRANCISCO MATEO, accused-appellants.
1. With respect to accused Chief Superintendent Dictador Alqueza for
DECISION insufficiency of evidence and serious doubt as to his guilt he is hereby
ROMERO, J.: ACQUITTED and his release from confinement is hereby ordered unless he is
being detained for some other legal cause or causes or by virtue of a legal
On May 11, 1993, Chou Cheung Yih, alias Jack Chou, a Taiwanese national, order.
was kidnapped in Multinational Village, Paraaque, Metro Manila. He was
kept captive for seven days until his family paid a ransom of P10 Million. 2. With respect to Lt. Col. Danilo Sta. Clara likewise for insufficiency of
Only then was he set free. evidence and for reasons of reasonable doubt he is likewise ACQUITTED. His
immediate release from confinement is hereby ordered unless he is being
Thereafter, accused-appellants Reynaldo Berroya, SPO4 Jose Vienes, detained for some other legal cause or causes or by virtue of a legal order.
Francisco Kit Mateo and thirteen (13) others, were charged with the crime
of kidnapping in an Information dated September 22, 1993 which reads as 3. With respect to accused Lavinia Mateo, for insufficiency of evidence and
follows: for reasons of reasonable doubt, she is hereby ACQUITTED and her
immediate release from confinement is hereby ordered unless she is being
That on or about 11 May 1993 at about 12:30 o clock in the afternoon and detained for some other legal cause or causes or by virtue of a legal order.
until 17 May 1993 along Sucat Road near Multinational Village, Paraaque,
Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above The acquittal of these three (3) accused does not necessarily mean that
named accused conspiring, confederating, mutually helping one another before their God and their conscience, they have not committed the crime.
and grouping themselves together, did then and there, by force, Only, there is lacking in evidence (sic) to support their convictions. Had
intimidation and the use of firearms, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously there been sufficient evidence against them, they will be convicted.
take, carry away, kidnap and deprive Chou Chu (sic) Yih alias Jack Chou, a 4. AND FINDING SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT REYNALDO BERROYA, SPO4 JOSE
Taiwanese investor, of his liberty and thereafter brought and detained him VIENES AND FRANCISCO MATEO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
in a safehouse in Paraaque, Metro Manila, Philippines, against his will and crime of kidnapping defined and penalized under Art. 267 of the Revised
consent for the purpose of extorting ransom for his release which was Penal Code and as the crime was committed prior to the effectivity of
effected after payment of the amount of HK$ 2,963,962.00 or its equivalent Republic Act 7659, the aforesaid accused Senior Superintendent Reynaldo
of P10 M thereafter divided by and among the accused themselves; to the Berroya, SPO4 Jose Vienes and Francisco Mateo alias Kit are hereby
loss, damage and prejudice of said Chou Chu (sic) Yih alias Jack Chou. sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Record, p.1) accessories of the law.
Further, the three (3) accused are hereby ordered to pay Chou Cheng Yih effects. The following day, his father, Chou Cheng Fu, who was in Taipei City,
alias Jack Chou, a Taiwanese businessman, jointly and severally was reached via telephone by the kidnappers. They demanded a ransom of
US$ 5 Million, but after several phone calls and a protracted negotiation,
1. TEN MILLION PESOS (P10,000,000.00) which is the unrecovered ransom they agreed upon P10 Million. The money was to be remitted to the Fu Wa
money. San Company, a Hongkong firm, through a jewelry store in Taiwan.
2. ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) for actual damages. On May 17, 1993, Chou Cheng Fu remitted the money, using a check, to
3. TWO MILLION PESOS (P2,000,000.00) for and as moral damages. Hongkong through the aforesaid jewelry store. Chou Cheung Yih was
consequently released in the afternoon of that same day. When presented
4. The amount of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) for exemplary on the witness stand, Chou Cheung Yih failed to identify anyone of the
damages, and; accused.

5. The amount of P400,000.00 for and as attorneys fees. Prescinding from the foregoing, the prosecution presented Chief Inspector
Wilfredo Reyes, who testified that on April 21, 1993, an informer of his, a
No civil liability is incurred by accused Chief Superintendent Dictador
certain Michael Evasco, [2] approached him and informed him of Francisco
Alqueza, Lt. Col. Danilo Sta. Clara and Lavinia Mateo.
Kit Mateos invitation to join a kidnap for ransom operation. Reyes knew Kit
With costs against Senior Superintendent Reynaldo Berroya, SPO4 Jose as an acquaintance of Col. Berroya, as the former used to visit the latter at
Vienes and Francisco Kit Mateo. his office in 1992 and 1993. Reyes and Berroya were then assigned to Task
Force Gemini and Task Force Lawin. Reyes signifying willingness to join the
The immediate confinement of Senior Superintendent Reynaldo Berroya, operation, asked for the name of the possible victim, but Evasco declined.
SPO4 Jose Vienes and Francisco Kit Mateo to the Bureau of Corrections,
Muntinlupa, Metro Manila is hereby ordered. The next morning, Reyes went to Col. Panfilo Lacson to inform him about
the kidnapping scheme. Thereupon, he was designated to go undercover to
SO ORDERED. [1] infiltrate the group of Kit Mateo.

Parenthetically, not one of the prosecution witnesses saw the actual On April 30, 1993, C/Insp. Reyes was introduced by Evasco to Kit Mateo. Kit
abduction. All the evidence concerning accused-appellants participation in Mateo told him, Okey, tutal Sir, pare-pareho naman tayong mga bata ni
the crime is circumstantial. The main issue in this appeal is therefore: Berro saka ni Barako, okey lang, sige puwede kang sumama. It was
Whether or not the circumstantial evidence linking the accused-appellants understood by Reyes that Berro referred to accused-appellant while Barako
to the kidnapping is sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond referred to General Alqueza. Doubtful of Kit Mateos sincerity, Evasco told
reasonable doubt. the former, Pare, itong sa atin ay pera-pera lang, wala tayong hulugan dito.
Kit Mateo responded: Hindi, totoo ito. Totoo itong gagawin natin. Ang mga
The facts, as culled from the record, are as follows:
taong kasama natin dito ay si Colonel Berroya, si General Alqueza, ang
Chou Cheung Yih, a Taiwanese national, was abducted by four (4) men in classmate ni Col. Berroya na si Colonel Danilo Sta. Clara Again the subject of
Multinational Village, Paraaque, Metro Manila on May 11, 1993. His the kidnap operation remained undivulged.
abductors seized his cellular phone (No. 3061859) and other personal
On May 7, 1993, Reyes together with Evasco, met with Kit Mateo at the In addition to C/Insp. Reyes testimony, the prosecution also presented
latters office, Le France, Jovan Condominium, Shaw Boulevard, Lenny Pagtakhan, a comadre of Kit Mateo and his wife. Pagtakhan testified
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. Several other persons, including appellant that she was present the whole day of May 7, 1993 at Kit Mateos office.
Jose Vienes and William Teng, a criminal known to Reyes, were present There were several persons present, including appellant Vienes and William
thereat. Kit Mateo held a meeting were they were given their respective Teng. With Kit Mateo presiding, the group had a meeting regarding the
assignments. Michael Evasco was to lead the group who would conduct the intended abduction of a Taiwanese national. Michael Evasco was charged
actual abduction. Two back-up teams were designated, with SPO4 Vienes with taking the Taiwanese while SPO4 Jose Vienes and Kit Mateo were to
heading one of the two teams. Reyes was tasked to remain at Camp Crame act as back-up. During the meeting, Kit told his wife, Vinia Mateo, to call
to monitor the activities of the operating units. As Evasco still evinced some Berro, referring to Sr/Supt. Reynaldo Berroya. She in turn instructed
signs of apprehension, Mateo instructed his wife, Vinia Mateo, to call Pagtakhan to call Berro. She called Berro up but as he was not there at his
accused-appellant Berroya. She, in turn, passed it on to Lenny Pagtakhan, office, she paged him through his beeper. After a time, Berroya returned the
one of the persons present, who later informed Kit that wala pa si Berro, call. Receiving the call, she informed Mateo that Berro was on the line. As
pero nagpapa return call ako. Moments later, Pagtakhan advised Kit Mateo the two conversed, she listened through the extension line, thus she
that Berroya was already on the line. Kit Mateo talked over the phone and overheard Mateo say Sir, I have already given instructions to the group.
afterwards gave a thumbs up sign saying Okey na pare, at ito pala ay may Accused-appellant Berroya told Mateo to call him the next day or that they
clearance na kay Barako. should meet on Monday. Mateo replied in the affirmative.

On May 10, 1993, Reyes again went to the office of Kit Mateo. It was then On May 10, 1993, the whole group, including Mateo, Vienes and Teng, held
that he met and was introduced to accused-appellant Berroya, with Kit another meeting to discuss the plan to kidnap a Taiwanese national. Kit
Mateo saying to Berroya Sir, ang bata nyo ni Barako, kasama rin natin yan. Mateo initially presided over the meeting. However, accused-appellant
In response, Berroya said: Willy, pagbutihin nyo lang, ito naman ay alam ni Berroya took over when he arrived. He was accompanied by C/Insp.
Barako. Thereafter, they talked of other things, allegedly because Reyes was Wilfredo Reyes. The meeting lasted until midnight. She overheard Berroya
ashamed to discuss the kidnap operation with Berroya, who was his say: O sige kailangan malinis ang pagkuha ng tao.
superior.
Pagtakhan further testified that in the afternoon of May 11, 1993, Kit Mateo
It was only on May 20, 1993 when Reyes came to know of the Chou and his group, including appellant Vienes and Teng, but without accused-
kidnapping, when Col. Lacson told him about it and ordered him to verify appellant Berroya and Reyes, arrived at the office. They were excited, with
whether Kit Mateos group was responsible. That evening, he met with Vinia Mateo telling her that the Taiwanese was already downstairs. She,
Evasco, who made known to him how the group kidnapped Chou. Evasco however, did not get to see the victim.
also told him that Berroya sent Kit Mateo and William Teng to Hongkong to
collect the ransom money. He was given a black paper bag containing A week or two later, she was with appellants Mateo and Vienes when the
money. That same night, he turned over the money to Sr./Supt. Basilio latter distributed the ransom money. They went to an undisclosed motor
Lucero, who issued to him an unofficial handwritten receipt for P50,000.00. shop in Quezon City where Mateo and Vienes, after conversing with
Berroya, gave several bundles of money to the latter (which as far as she
knew was P1 Million).
On the other hand, after the kidnapping incident, an investigation was On May 17, 1993, William Teng collected in Hongkong the ransom money
conducted by the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission, through Col. Panfilo paid by Chou Cheng Fu. This was evidenced by the fax message of Hung
Lacson and C/Insp. Michael Aquino, in coordination with Taiwanese and Chee Co. in Taipei, to the Fu Wa San Co. dated May 17, 1993, as well as the
Hongkong authorities, Piltel and the Philippine Long Distance Telephone check stub dated May 17, 1993 in the name of Reynaldo Manio. The check
Company. Based on the record of phone calls provided by Piltel and the amounted to HK$ 2,962,963.00.
Royal Hongkong Police, a phone call was placed on May 11, 1993 from Chou
Cheung Yihs cellular phone (No. 3061859) to Telephone No. 79-37-85, the Against this factual backdrop, the Court a quo found accused-appellants
telephone number of Mateos Le France office. Then, on May 14, 1993, Berroya, Vienes, and Mateo guilty, as conspirators in the kidnapping of
another call was made from the same cellular phone to Telephone No. 78- Chou.
35-72, a telephone registered under the name of Samuel Abellera, a Hence, accused-appellants recourse to this Court, wherein they raise several
neighbor of accused-appellant at Masbate Street, Project 4, Quezon City. errors of the lower court, summarized as follows:
On the same day, Telephone No. 882-27-70 (Hongkong), registered under 1. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE VERSION OF
the name of Lee Kim Jok, called 817-20-39, the direct line to the Office of PROSECUTION WITNESSES LENNY PAGTAKHAN AND CHIEF INSPECTOR
the Chief of Special Operations Group, Southern Police District Command, WILFREDO REYES, DESPITE THE CLEAR SHOWING THAT THESE WITNESSES
Fort Bonifacio, Makati, Metro Manila. At that time, the Chief of said office ARE NOT POSSESSED OF THE REQUIRED CREDIBILITY AND
was accused-appellant. On the same day, Cellular Phone No. 305-44-65 TRUSTWORTHINESS TO OVERCOME THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION
registered under accused-appellant Berroyas name placed a call to OF INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
Telephone No. 79-37-85, the number of Kit Mateos office.
2. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS
On the other hand, the aforesaid Tel. No. 79-37-85 made nine calls to Tel. CONSPIRACY BETWEEN ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
No. 882-27-70 (Hongkong); one on May 14; one on May 15; four on May 17;
and another three on May 18, 1993 during the ransom negotiations for the 3. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
release of Chou Cheung Yih and one day after his release. DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO
ESTABLISH PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE GUILT OF THE
Conversely, Tel. No. 882-27-70 (Hongkong) called appellant Mateos office ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
on May 14, 15 and 16, 1993 also during the period of ransom negotiation.
We find the petition to be impressed with merit.
Tel. No. 882-27-70 (Hongkong) also made four calls on May 15, 1993, and
three calls on May 17, 1993 to Chou Cheng Fu, father of the kidnap victim. Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that (i)n all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
Tel. No. 882-27-70 (Hongkong) was traced to Flat B, 8th Floor, Hyde Park contrary is proved Given this presumption, the State must thus prove the
Mansion, 53 Peterson Street, Hongkong, which apartment was found to be guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and this presumption
registered in the name of Lee Kim Jok and Emil Ong alias William Teng or prevails unless overturned by competent and credible proof. The State is
Reynaldo Manio. required, in the discharge of the burden imposed upon it, to establish by
On May 14, 1993, appellant Mateo and William Teng went to Hongkong. proof all the essential elements of the crime with which the defendant is
charged in the indictment, and to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that conviction, the following requisites must concur: (i) there must be more
the accused is guilty of said crime. In the absence of such a degree of proof than one circumstance to convict; (ii) facts on which the inference of guilt is
of the defendants guilt, he is entitled to an acquittal, regardless of whether based must be proved; and (iii) the combination of all the circumstances is
his moral character is good or bad. It is not sufficient that the such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
preponderance or the weight of the evidence points to the guilt of the
accused, x x x as evidence showing a mere possibility of guilt is insufficient While it is true that no general rule has been formulated as to the quantity
to warrant a conviction.[3] of circumstantial evidence which will suffice, the Solicitor General believes
that in the instant case the prosecution has failed to overthrow the
The necessity for proof beyond reasonable doubt lies in the fact that (i)n a constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of appellant Berroya.
criminal prosecution, the State is arrayed against the subject; it enters the
contest with a prior inculpatory finding in its hands; with unlimited means of We agree. Furthermore, as regards appellant Vienes, we find that the State
command; with counsel usually of authority and capacity, who are regarded has also failed to adduce the quantum of proof necessary to convict him.
as public officers, and therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and with an We shall discuss the evidence and our findings as the same pertain to each
attitude of tranquil majesty often in striking contrast to that of defendant of the appellants.
engaged in a perturbed and distracting struggle for liberty if not for life.
These inequalities of position, the law strives to meet by the rule that there With respect to accused-appellant Berroya, the trial court implicated him as
is to be no conviction when there is a reasonable doubt of guilt. [4] a principal, allegedly through his conspiracy with the group which
kidnapped Chou Cheung Yih. In the words of the trial court:
However, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of
proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Suffice Now, with respect to Senior Superintendent Reynaldo Berroya:
it to say that the law requires only moral certainty or that degree of proof
The Court is convinced that he indeed presided in the meeting held on May
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[5]
10, 1993 at Le France, Jovan Condominium, Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong,
Granted that the evidence adduced by the State to prove the guilt of the Metro Manila. The act of presiding over a meeting to plan the kidnapping of
accused is purely circumstantial, would the same amount to such as to a person and then the kidnapping took place and ransom was paid is a very
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants committed the conclusive proof that the chain of evidence is complete. It is unbroken. This
crime charged? is further bolstered by the fact that the person tasked to do the actual
kidnapping, the back-ups and others who are involved were present during
The following principles must be borne in mind. First, crimes are not usually that meeting.
intended to be accomplished under the direct gaze of witnesses; nor is the
planning thereof done in public. Hence, the necessity of circumstantial Another evidence that shows the participation of Senior Superintendent
evidence to prove the same. But for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient Reynaldo Berroya is his call to the office of Francisco Mateo on May 14,
to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with the 1993, after the kidnapping and the telephone he used is Cellular Phone No.
hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with 305-44-65. And also there were other calls made that will show that he is
the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis connected with the kidnapping because phone no. 8822770, being used by
except that of guilt. [6] Thus, for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for Reynaldo Manio in Hongkong called Senior Superintendent Reynaldo
Berroya at the latters office at SOG, Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, ni Col. Berroya na si Colonel Danilo Sta. Clara are likewise inadmissible
Makati, Metro Manila. This was after the kidnapping and prior to the against accused-appellant Berroya as the rights of a party cannot be
payment of ransom. As has been stated the ransom has been taken by prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another... [9] Res inter alios
Reynaldo Manio alias William Teng, one of those present during the acta.
meeting of May 10, 1993 which was partly presided by Senior
Superintendent Reynaldo Berroya. With reference to the May 7, 1993 telephone conversation, Kit Mateo
supposedly talked to Berroya in this wise: Okey na pare, at ito pala ay may
The defense of Senior Superintendent Reynaldo Berroya are alibis and clearance na rin kay Barako. There is no showing that it was indeed Berroya
denials, the weakest defenses that can be put up by any accused. His that Kit was talking to. And furthermore, even if it was indeed accused-
defenses failed to overcome the evidence against him. appellant, the same is ambiguous at best. There is no proof as to the exact
conversation between Kit and the accused-appellant, nor that the
The fact of his conspiracy with the group who kidnapped Chou Cheng Yih statement alluded to refers to the kidnapping of Chou.
has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
The same observation goes for Berroyas alleged statement to Reyes on May
If there is a planning with respect to the commission of the crime and there 10, 1993 that: Willy, pagbutihin nyo lang, ito naman ay alam ni Barako.
are subsequent events that will lead to the conclusion that those who
Again, the utterance is equivocal. In fact, according to Reyes, other than said
attended the meeting to pursue the crime then they become liable not only statement, the kidnapping operation was never discussed by him and
as accessory or accomplice but as principal.[7] accused-appellant on that day.
The evidence taken against him consists of the testimonies of C/Insp. Reyes As to Reyes contention that he was tasked to infiltrate Mateos group, the
and Lenny Pagtakhan, as well as the record of phone calls made from and to same is open to doubt. It is undisputed that he never submitted any report,
him. nor was he mentioned in the PACC reports. The P50,000.00 allegedly given
However, as regards the testimony of C/Insp. Reyes, a substantial part to him by Evasco was evidenced only by an unsigned handwritten receipt,
thereof is inadmissible. It must be stressed that Reyes never learned the and the same was never included by PACC in its reports to the Department
identity of the intended victim, but only that a kidnap operation was being of Justice regarding the matter. Lastly, Reyes was supposedly invited by
planned by Kit Mateos group. Furthermore, he never participated in the Mateo to participate in the kidnapping, yet it was only on May 20 when he
actual kidnapping, but was only told the details thereof by Michael Evasco learned of the same.
on May 20, 1993. A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows
Moreover, it is odd that it was Evasco, the supposed emissary between
of his personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his own Mateo and Reyes, and one of those supposed to be involved in the
perception... [8] Thus, the same is hearsay which is inadmissible in evidence. operation, who showed signs of apprehension at the outcome of the plan,
Kit Mateos statement on April 30, 1993 to the effect that Okey, tutal Sir, such that he needed to be given proof of accused-appellant Berroyas
pare-pareho naman tayong mga bata ni Berro saka ni Barako, okey lang, sige participation in the nefarious plan, while Reyes, the newcomer, never
puwede kang sumama, as well as Mateos statement to assuage Evascos became wary of the groups bona fides. It can thus be seen from the above
fears in this wise Hindi, totoo ito. Totoo itong gagawin natin. Ang mga taong discussion that C/Insp. Reyes testimony is riddled with inconsistencies and
kasama natin dito ay si Colonel Berroya, si General Alqueza, ang classmate
infirmities such that it lacks that degree of conclusiveness required to Finally, as to the matter of the phone calls presented in evidence as
convict the appellant. allegedly incriminatory of Berroya, the records only identify the numbers
where the calls were made and received. They do not show who were the
Similarly, Lenny Pagtakhan, the other principal witness, gave inconclusive actual caller and receiver thereof; nor do they reveal the matters discussed
testimony as to appellant Berroyas complicity in the crime charged. during the telephone conversations. To inject sinister meaning to these calls
She testified that Kit Mateo and accused-appellant Berroya had a telephone is risky, being fraught with speculation.
conversation on May 7, 1993, where she overheard Mateo tell appellant As regards the first call, the same was made from Chous cellular phone at
that he had given instructions to the group. Appellant Berroya then said, All the time that he was already in captivity. However, the call was directed to
right, call me up tomorrow or let us meet on Monday. Standing alone, there Samuel Abellera, a neighbor of accused-appellant. It proves nothing as to
is nothing incriminatory in the above statement. the guilt of the accused. Berroya and his neighbor are two distinct
With respect to the May 10, 1993 meeting to kidnap a Taiwanese national, individuals, and absent proof that it was accused-appellant Berroya who
allegedly presided over by Berroya, the actual name of the victim was never received the call, the same cannot be held against him.
mentioned. In fact, Pagtakhan admitted that she was not a participant The second call from Hongkong to the Special Operations Group, Southern
thereof, as the same was held behind closed doors. On cross-examination,
Police District Command, Fort Bonifacio, again does not constitute
she changed her testimony, saying that the statement O sige kailangan conclusive proof of Berroyas guilt. Although appellant was the chief of said
malinis ang pagkuha ng tao, which she initially imputed to appellant was not office, there is no showing that he was the one who received the call. In
said by Berroya, but actually by Kit Mateo. fact, said phone was registered in the name of the government. Moreover,
Additionally, her version of facts conflicts with that of C/Insp. Reyes. She the prosecution witness failed to state under oath that the same was not
alleged that on May 10, 1993, the group discussed the kidnap scheme from being used by other members of the Special Operations Group.
5:00 p.m. until midnight. Reyes, on the other hand, denies that there was a As for the third call made on May 14, 1993, there is no evidence as to the
discussion of the same, purportedly because he was ashamed to discuss the subject matter of the conversation thereof. Worse, Kit Mateo never went to
same with his superior. Her narration that accused-appellant Berroya his office on that day as he was in Hongkong at the time. Then too, it must
arrived at the Le France office accompanied by Reyes is contradicted as well be borne in mind that Mateo and accused-appellant Berroya were longtime
by Reyes, who said that accused-appellant was already at the Le France
acquaintances. A telephone call between them, if it transpired at all, is not
office in the evening of May 10, 1993 when he arrived. highly improbable or even suspect.
As for the money allegedly given to Berroya by Kit Mateo, there is no proof In the words of the Solicitor General, the theory of the prosecution against
that it came from the ransom money paid by Chou Cheng Fu. appellant Berroya has too many loose ends that it has dismally failed to tie
Given the above disquisition, the testimony of Lenny Pagtakhan, with regard up to the satisfaction of the constitutional requirement of proof beyond
to appellant Berroya, cannot likewise be accorded the trustworthiness and reasonable doubt. Appellant Berroyas twin defenses of alibi and denial, to
credibility required of a witness in a criminal case. be sure, are weak, but the incurably ambiguous evidence of the prosecution
simply cannot justify appellant Berroyas condemnation for the rest of his
life where there are disturbing whispers of doubt that he is guilty. [10]
As to appellant Jose Vienes, the evidence presented against him by the It must be kept in mind that conspiracy must be established by positive and
State only establishes his presence at the May 7, 1993 and the May 10, 1993 conclusive evidence. It cannot be based on mere conjectures but must be
meeting at the Le France office in Mandaluyong. During those meetings, a established as a fact. The same degree of proof required to establish the
kidnapping scheme, with an undisclosed Taiwanese national as victim, was crime is necessary to support a finding of the presence of conspiracy, that is,
hatched. Appellant Vienes was to serve as backup during the actual it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of
kidnapping. Additionally, Vienes is said to have been present on May 11, the offense itself. [12] An assumed intimacy is of no legal bearing inasmuch
1993 at the Le France office when the group allegedly had the kidnap victim as conspiracy transcends companionship. [13]
at the basement thereof.
Furthermore, in order to hold an accused liable as co-principal by reason of
Again, it must be emphasized that not one of the prosecution witnesses saw conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance
the actual kidnapping. No one saw appellant Vienes participate therein. or furtherance of the conspiracy. That overt act may consist of active
Even the victim failed to identify him as one of the perpetrators thereof. In participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist
point of fact, the trial court convicted him as a principal largely due to his of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of
alleged conspiracy with Mateo. The finding of conspiracy was based on his the commission of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the
close friendship with Mateo and his presence in those two crucial meetings. other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the
As the trial court found it: conspiracy. [14] Hence, the mere presence of an accused at the discussion
of a conspiracy, even approval of it without any active participation in the
With respect to SPO4 Vienes, said accused was present during the meetings same, is not enough for purposes of conviction. [15] Thus, assuming Vienes
of May 7 and 10, 1993 at Le France, Jovan Condominium, Shaw Boulevard, was a participant in the planning to abduct a Taiwanese national, in the
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. He was given task allocation (sic) as a back up absence of eyewitnesses to the actual abduction, there is a paucity of
of Michael Evasco and that on May 11, 1993, SPO4 Jose Vienes was present
evidence as to whether or not Vienes carried out his part of the plan.
at Jovan Condominium at Le France Office, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila
after the kidnapping of the Taiwanese Chou Cheung Yih. He is a close friend Given the above, it becomes painfully apparent that Vienes presence at the
of Francisco Kit Mateo and he even recommended to Kit Mateo a friend to May 7 and May 10 meetings is insufficient to convict him. In fact, even the
become a janitor in the office of Francisco Kit Mateo. evidence as to his presence in the May 10, 1993 meeting is inconclusive.
While both Reyes and Pagtakhan pinpoint appellant Vienes as present in the
SPO4 Jose Vienes cannot impute any evil motive, such as revenge, spite or May 7 meeting, Reyes does not say that he was present on May 10.
whatever that will prompt Lenny Pagtakhan and Chief Inspector Wilfredo
Pagtakhan, on the other hand, says he was. His presence at Le France on
Reyes to testify against him. May 11, 1993, when the victim was said to be downstairs, cannot be held
His defense consisting of mere denials and alibi are so weak compared to against him, as the same is belied by the prosecution itself, which claims
the positive identification against him. His having been at Le France, Jovan that the victim was never brought to Le France.
Condominium, Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila together with Consequently, without proof that appellant Vienes personally took part in
those who actually kidnapped Chou Cheung Yih is a proof that indeed he the execution of the kidnapping, there is only at most, a conspiracy with the
complied with the plan for him to be a back up. [11] other accused. Conspiracy alone, without the execution of its purpose, is
not a crime punishable by law except in special cases, [16] none of which is
present in the case at bar; hence, appellant Vienes cannot be held criminally collected in Hongkong the ransom money remitted by Chou Cheung Yihs
liable. father on May 17, 1993.

However, accused-appellant Kit Mateo tells of an altogether different story. Taken altogether, the unequivocal testimonies of the principal witnesses
The facts on record as regards him constitute an unbroken chain leading to pointing to appellant Mateo as the one who presided over the May 7 and
the fair and reasonable conclusion that he is guilty of kidnapping. May 10 meeting at Le France; William Tengs presence at the aforesaid
meetings; appellants close association with William Teng; appellants trip to
While the testimonies of prosecution witnesses C/Insp. Wilfredo Reyes and Hongkong together with William Teng; the series of calls between Mateos
Lenny Pagtakhan may not have produced the moral certainty necessary to office and Tengs flat in Hongkong; the calls from Tengs flat to the victims
convict appellants Berroya and Vienes, the same, coupled with the other father during the same period; and William Tengs collection and receipt of
pieces of evidence gathered by the prosecution, are more than sufficient to the ransom money all collectively and ineluctably constitute an unbroken
overthrow the presumption of his innocence and establish his culpability chain leading to a single conclusion that there was a consummated
beyond reasonable doubt. conspiracy between appellant Mateo and Teng to kidnap Chou Cheung Yih
Consider the following antecedents. It has been proved that indeed there for ransom.
was a plot to kidnap a Taiwanese national, albeit his identity was unknown.
Appellant Mateo assails the credibility of prosecution witnesses Reyes and
The same was formulated on May 7 and May 10, 1993. Appellant Mateo Pagtakhan. Although the same cannot be relied upon to convict appellants
was present at the aforesaid meetings; in fact, he presided over the same. Berroya and Vienes, the same does not hold true as regards appellant
William Teng was present at these meetings. Mateo. The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved
In the afternoon of Chou Cheung Yihs abduction, his cellular phone was in part, as the corroborative evidence or the lack thereof and the
used by his abductors to call Mateos Le France office. During the ransom probabilities and improbabilities of the case may require. [17] We find
negotiations, there was an exchange of phone calls between appellant appellant Mateo guilty of the crime charged.
Mateos telephone and William Tengs place in Hongkong. During the same Now for a final point that needs must be stressed lest it be misconstrued
period, William Tengs telephone called up the victims father seven times. that the ruling of this Court is a categorical declaration as to the innocence
Appellant Mateo presented not a single shred of evidence to rebut or of accused-appellants Berroya and Vienes. It is the law that requires proof
explain the reason for such calls. Certainly, such exchange of phone calls
beyond reasonable doubt. This, the prosecution has failed to even
cannot be considered merely coincidental. approximate. It does not mean that accused-appellants are lily-white or as
On May 14, 1993, appellant Mateo went to Hongkong with William Teng, pure as driven snow. To be sure, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances
allegedly to buy spare parts for a Volkswagen used for racing. Appellant are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the
never presented any proof of his purchase of said spare parts, nor that such innocence of the accused of the crime charged and the other consistent
spare parts were unavailable in the Philippines. His reason for going to with their guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty
Hongkong is vague and tenuous. and is not sufficient to support a conviction. This, from the beginning, has
been the lodestar of our accusatorial system of criminal justice.
The above-mentioned circumstances further bolster the inculpatory link
between appellant Mateo and William Teng, the person who personally
We call to mind what Alfonso El Sabio was reputed to have said a long time
ago: Mas vale que queden sin castigar diez reos presuntos, que se castigue
uno inocente.[18]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from with respect

to accused-appellant REYNALDO BERROYA and SPO4 JOSE VIENES is hereby
REVERSED and ASIDE. Accused-appellants Berroya and Vienes are acquitted
of the charge of kidnapping on grounds of reasonable doubt and their
immediate release from custody is ordered unless they are being held on
other legal grounds.

As for accused-appellant FRANCISCO KIT MATEO, the decision appealed

from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.