Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 115351 March 27, 1998

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
DANIEL MALUENDA alias "DONGKOY"; GIL BUENO; RAUL MONDAGA alias "BOBONG"; and
RODRIGO LEGARTO, accused, DANIEL MALUEDA and RODRIGO LEGARTO, accused-
appellants.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Conspiracy and/or direct participation in a crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence.

However, the comprising circumstances must be duly proven, consistent with each other and
lead with moral certainty to only one conclusion: that the accused is guilty. If the totality of
such circumstances eliminates beyond reasonable doubt the possibility of innocence,
conviction is proper; otherwise, the accused must be acquitted. If said accused, however,
took advantage of the effects of the crime and profited thereby, he can be held criminally
liable as an accessory.

The Case

This is an appeal from the March 18, 1994 Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of Lianga,
Surigao del Sur, Branch 28, in Criminal Case No. L-1174, convicting Raul Mondaga, Rodrigo
Legarto and Daniel Maluenda of kidnapping and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.

In an Information dated November 20, 1992, Mondaga, Maluenda and Legarto, together with a
Certain Gil Bueno, were charged by Prosecutor II Florito G. Cuartero with kidnapping,
committed as follows:2

That on the 19th day of August 1992, at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, more or
less, at [B]arangay Diatagon, [M]unicipality of Lianga, [P]rovince of Surigao del Sur,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did, then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap Engr. Miguel Resus for the purpose
of extorting money from Engr. & Mrs. Resus, detaining said Engr. Miguel Resus for a
period of four (4) days, to the damage and prejudice of the victim in the amount of
P200,000.00, Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW. (In violation of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code).
Warrants of arrest for the four accused were issued by the trial court, but Bueno eluded the
authorities and remained at large.3 At their arraignment and with the assistance of counsel,
Legarto, Maluenda and Mondaga pleaded not guilty.4

After trial in due course, the lower court found the three accused guilty as charged and
disposed as follows:5

WHEREFORE, consistent with all the foregoing findings, this Court finds all the
accuseds [sic], namely, Raul Mondaga, alias Bobong Gonzaga, 21 years old, single,
driver by occupation, as alleged, and resident of Tagongon, Tagbina, Surigao del Sur;
Rodrigo Legarto alias Rudy, 37 years old, married to Magdalena C. Legarto, gas man
of the bankrupt Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. and a resident of New Highway, Purok III,
Diatagon, Lianga, Surigao del Sur and Daniel Maluenda, AliasCommander Dongkoy,
22 years old, single, and a farmer and goldminer, and resident of Purok 1, Barobo,
Surigao del Sur, all guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals of the crime of
Kidnapping for Ransom, defined and penalized under the last paragraph of Article 267
of the Revised Penal Code as charged in the Information, and are hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided by
law, and to restitute to the private complainants, Engr. Miguel E. Resus and Dra.
Bernardita R. Resus, jointly and severally, the amount of P200,000.00 corresponding
to the aggregate of the money in cash and medicines extorted as per the demand of
the accuseds [sic] and given by the kidnap victim's wife, including the subject
motorcycle which has been paid for by the victim's ransom money; (Exh. "E") with the
down payment as per agreement advanced by the couple Resus for a total cost price
of P46,895.00 (Exh. "F") and to pay the costs.

Immediately after promulgation of this decision, so as not to render the sentence

imposed ineffectual with respect to accused Rodrigo Legarto, alias Rudy, the bail
bond posted for his provisional release is hereby cancelled and said accused ordered
committed to the custody of the Provincial Warden of Surigao del Sur at Tandag,
Surigao del Sur, preparatory to the service of his sentence.

In the service of this sentence, all the accused are ordered immediately turned over to
the custody of the Director, Bureau of Corrections, at Muntinlupa, Metro Manila,
pursuant to the mandate of Supreme Court Circular No. 4-92-A dated April 20, 1992.

Finally, let [an] alias warrant of arrest issue against accused Gil Bueno for distribution
to the different investigative and law-enforcement agencies of the Government for
their possible execution and return, and hereby consigning this case, with respect to
said GIL BUENO, to the ARCHIVES to be reinstated to the active files of criminal cases
upon his arrest.

In view of the penalty imposed, Legarto, Maluenda and Mondaga interposed this appeal
directly before this Court.6 However, on March 30, 1995, Mondaga withdrew his
appeal.7 Hence, this Court will now pass upon the criminal liability of Legarto and Maluenda
only.

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

In the Appellee's Brief, the solicitor general presents the following narration of the
kidnapping:8

On August 19, 1992 at around 9:45 in the evening, Engr. Miguel E. Resus ("Engr.
Resus") and his wife, Dr. Bernardita B. Resus ("Dr. Resus"), arrived at their
residence/clinic at Diatagon, Lianga, Surigao del Sur, from a novena they attended.
Waiting for the Resus spouses at the clinic which adjoins the Resus spouses'
residence were three men who identified themselves as Commander Bobong Gonzaga
(who is actually Raul Mondaga), Commander Bongkoy (who is actually Maluenda)
and alias"Alex". Upon the arrival of the Resus spouses, Mondaga declared that they
came upon orders of a certain Father Simon, an alleged NPA Commander, with his
directive to solicit money and medicines needed for the victims of the recent military-
NPA encounter at Melale, Agusan del Sur. The trio demanded from the couple
medicines and money in the amount of P20,000.00, but when the couple told them that
they did not have such an amount, they lowered their demand to P10,000.00, and
reduced it still to P5,000.00 when the couple still could not produce the said amount.
Finally, the demand was lowered to any amount the Resus couple could provide. The
latter gave the amount of P500.00 plus assorted medicines worth P800.00. After they
were given the money and medicines, the trio demanded that they be driven by Engr.
Resus in his Volkswagen car to San Roque, Barobo, Surigao del Sur, but the couple
begged off reasoning that their car [did] have any sufficient gasoline and that the car
was not in good running condition to travel that night. Mondaga then demanded that
very early in the morning, the couple should prepare the vehicle so Engr. Resus
[could] drive them to San Roque, Barobo, Surigao del Sur. They left the clinic with [a]
threat not to tell anybody about their coming, otherwise they [would] kill all the
members of their family and blow-up the clinic.

The next day or on August 20, 1992 at around 5:00 o'clock in the morning, Mondaga
arrived at the residence of the Resus couple. Mondaga hurried up Engr. Resus as he
[would] meet his companions who were ferried by Legarto. Engr. Resus then drove
Mondaga to Andanan. As the two passed along Andanan, they met Legarto, who was
on his way back to Diatogon after his passengers, i.e., Maluenda and Alex, alighted
from his motorcycle and [waited] for Mondaga and Engr. Resus at Andanan. Maluenda
and Alex then rode with Mondaga and Engr. Resus to Barobo. Upon reaching Barobo,
Mondaga told Engr. Resus that they [would] go to San Francisco instead of going to
San Roque. They, however, did not reach San Francisco, and instead they stopped at
Alegria. Upon reaching Alegria, Mondaga ordered Engr. Resus that he had to go with
them. Against his will, Engr. Resus went with the three. They went to the mountain
hiking for almost two (2) hours between the boundary of Cardon and Alegria. Upon
reaching a hut, Mondaga told him that he had forgotten something and had to go back
and that Engr. Resus had to stay there. So Engr. Resus, Maluenda, Alex and Gil Bueno
passed the night in the farmhut.

Meanwhile at the house of the Resus couple, Dr. Resus was informed by the midwife
that Mondaga came at around 4:00 p.m. when Dr. Resus was out. Mondaga told the
midwife that he [would] come back. Mondaga arrived at the Resus clinic at around
7:00 in the evening. Mondaga demanded from Dr. Resus the amount of P300,000.00 for
the release of Engr. Resus. Dr. Resus told Mondaga that she [could] only produce
P10,000.00. Mondaga told Dr. Resus to reserve the amount for he [would] get it the
following morning. He also instructed Dr. Resus to look for the firearm of her
husband. Dr. Resus then searched for the gun (Exh. H) of her husband and after
finding it in the cabinet in their room, gave the same to Mondaga. After [the gun was
given to him], Mondaga demanded for the use of Engr. Resus' motorcycle, but Dr.
Resus told him that the motorcycle [was] out of order. So Mondaga instructed Dr.
Resus to get the motorcycle of Legarto, which Dr. Resus did.

On August 21, 1992, at around 4:45 a.m. Mondaga arrived at Dr. Resus' clinic. Shortly
thereafter, Legarto also arrived in his motorcycle. Mondaga demanded that Dr. Resus
go with them but the latter made excuses particularly her health. Dr. Resus asked that
her helper Maria Abne go instead to which Mondaga agreed. At exactly 5:00 a.m.,
Mondaga, Legarto and Maria Abne left Dr. Resus' clinic, bringing with them the
P10,000.00 Dr. Resus gave and the Magnum 22 of Engr. Resus. The three arrived at
Alegria, San Francisco, Agusan del Sur at around 7:00 a.m. Legarto then safely kept
his motorcycle after which they walked to the forest for about 2 hours until they
reached a carabao crossing where Mondaga left Legarto and Maria Abne for 30
minutes. Mondaga went to the hut where he left Engr. Resus with a note from Dr.
Resus which state[d], "Daddy, I have committed only P10,000.00". He gave the note to
Engr. Resus but told Engr. Resus that "you can afford P300,000.00". Engr. Resus
pleaded with Mondaga that they [did] not have such amount so Mondaga lowered his
demand to P200,000.00. Engr. Resus then signed the note stating, "Mommy, it is up to
you to produce this amount." With the note, Mondaga and Legarto went back to
Alegria, while Abne was left with Engr. Resus. Legarto who was driving Engr. Resus'
car, went to the house of Nora Gubantes where Dr. Resus was at that time and
informed her that Mondaga [was] waiting [for] her at SSIFA, St. Christine. Dr. Resus
went with Legarto at SSIFA, St. Christine where they met Mondaga, who joined them
at the car after which the three proceeded to a deserted place. Mondaga then handed
to Dr. Resus the note written by Engr. Resus where it was written the P200,000.00
ransom. [sic] Dr. Resus told Mondaga that she [could] only produce P100,000.00
Mondaga agreed to the P100,000.00 on the additional condition that he [would] no
longer return the motorcycle of Legarto and instead to give to Legarto the amount of
P50,000.00 as payment for the motorcycle. Mondaga also instructed Legarto to deliver
the amount of P100,000.00 and the original license of the motorcycle. Dr. Resus and
Legarto then went back to the clinic leaving Mondaga behind.

At around 1:30 p.m. of August 21, 1992, Dr. Resus, together with Nora Gubantes, went
to Lianga to secure money from the relatives of Dr. Resus. Since Dr. Resus' cousins
were out of town, the two proceeded to San Francisco, Agusan del Sur to see Dr.
Presentacion Manatad, the mayor of San Francisco. Dr. Resus informed Mayor
Manatad about the incident and asked the mayor to give her an amount of P150,000.00
in return for a PNB Check Dr. Resus [would] issue. Mayor Manatad gave her the
amount after Dr. Resus issued PNB Check No. 621330-AJ in the amount of
P150,000.00 (Exh. B). Dr. Resus gave the money to Nora Gubantes with the instruction
to give the same to Legarto. Upon reaching Diatogon, Nora Gubantes gave the money
to her husband with the instruction to give the money to Legarto. Legarto
acknowledged receiving the money from Mr. Gubantes on August 22, 1992.

On August 22, 1992, Mondaga arrived at the hut where Engr. Resus was and told that
[sic] the latter that he would be released but that he [would] come back to get the
balance of the P300,000.00 in three months. In the afternoon of August 22, 1992, Engr.
Resus and Maria Abne were released. The two were driven by Legarto in Engr.
Resus['] car.

Mondaga, Maluenda and Legarto were later arrested by the police.

Version of the Defense

Appellant Legarto, the Resus couple's former part-time driver, denies any criminal
involvement in the kidnapping. He avows that he participated only in the delivery of the
ransom money at the insistence of Dr. Resus herself. In Legarto's Supplemental Brief, his
counsel submits the following counter-statement of facts:9

On August 19, 1992, at 9:45 in the evening, Engr. Miguel E. Resus and wife Dr.
Bernardita B. Resus, arrived at their clinic near their residence at Diatagon, Lianga,
Surigao del Sur after attending a novena. (TSN, March 16, 1993, p.3). There were three
(3) men who were waiting for them at the clinic, later identified as Commander Bobong
Gonzaga (Raul Mondaga), Commander Bongkoy (Daniel Maluenda), and a certain
"Alex" (ibid. p. 5). Mondaga, upon arrival of the spouses, solicited money and
medicines from them, upon orders of a certain Father Simon, an NPA Commander
(ibid, p. 7). These money and medicines were needed for the victims of the recent
military-NPA encounter at Melale, Agusan del Sur. (ibid.). At first, the three asked for
P20,000.00 (ibid. p. 8) but lowered it to P10,000.00, and still reduced it to P5,000.00.
Finally, the Resus spouses could only give P500.00 together with P800.00 worth of
medicines. (TSN, March 17, 1993 p. 42)

After the money and medicines were handed to them, the three people demanded that
they be driven by Engr. Resus in his Volkswagen car to San Roque, Barobo, Surigao
del Sur, but Engr. Resus declined saying that he could not drive them at 12:00
midnight because he [did] not have enough gasoline and that his service car [was] not
in good condition to travel in the evening. (TSN, March 16, 1993, p. 8). But one person,
Mondaga, insisted that the next morning, a vehicle should be prepared for a trip to
San Roque, Barobo, Surigao del Sur. (TSN, March 17, 1993, p. 43)

At about 4:45 in the morning of August 20, 1992, Mondaga knocked at the door of the
clinic. Engr. Resus was just busy preparing the vehicle, securing gasoline. (ibid, p.
44.) Mondaga rode in the vehicle of Engr. Resus and met his two companions at
Andanan. (ibid.)

Instead of San Roque, the vehicle stopped at Alegria (TSN, March 16, 1993, p. 11). The
three (Mondaga, Maluenda and Alex) asked Engr. Resus to go with them. (ibid.) They
went to the mountains and hiked for almost two (2) hours between the boundary of
Gordon and Alegria. (ibid.) When they reached the area, Mondaga went back to
Alegria, leaving behind the three who passed the night in the area. (ibid, p. 12)

Mondaga arrived at around 4:00 in the afternoon at the clinic of Dr. Resus. (TSN,
March 17, 1993, p. 47) Dr. Resus was out, but when Mondaga later came back at 7:00
in the evening and saw Dr. Resus (ibid, p. 48), he demanded the amount of
P300,000.00. But since Dr. Resus had only P10,000.00, Mondaga told her to reserve it
and he [would] get it the next morning. (ibid., pp. 48-49) After asking for the firearm of
Engr. Resus, (ibid, p. 51) Mondaga demanded to use the motorcycle of Engr. Resus.
(ibid.) Dr. Resus said that it was out of order. (ibid.) Mondaga ordered her to secure a
motorcycle. (ibid) Dr. Resus, together with her maid, Maria Abne, went to the house of
their driver, Rudy Legarto. (TSN, November 23, 1993, p. 22) Dr. Resus requested Rudy
Legarto to drive for Maria Abne and Mondaga in his motorcycle to Alegria and on his
return, to drive for his Manong Mike. (ibid) Legarto refused because of his work. (ibid)
But when Dr. Resus insisted and when told that it was very important to conduct
Maria Abne and Mondaga, and because she was his boss, he agreed. (ibid.) He was
asked to file a leave of absence from his job. (ibid.) It is important to note that it was
[Dr.] Resus who got Legarto involved in this drama.
At around 5:00 in the morning of August 21, 1992, Legarto drove for Maria Abne and
Mondaga to Alegria at the behest of Dr. Resus. (ibid, p. 23) At Alegria, the three
proceeded of [sic] Dr. Resus (ibid, p. 23) to a hilly side. (ibid.) Legarto and Maria Abne
were left behind and Mondaga told them that he [would] inform his commander to
release Engr. Resus. (ibid.) They were also warned not to escape because they were
guarded. (ibid.)

At about 9:00 in the evening, Engr. Resus, together with Mondaga, arrived. Legarto
was told by Engr. Resus not to worry as he was treated well. (ibid.) Engr. Resus told
Mondaga that Legarto was his driver and Maria Abne was his helper. (ibid.) [O]n the
way back, Legarto and Abne walked five (5) meters ahead while Mondaga and Engr.
Resus walked side by side. Legarto and Abne heard their conversations (ibid, pp. 23-
24) and Mondaga was demanding P300,000.00. Engr. Resus pleaded that he [did not]
have that amount. (ibid) Mondaga them ordered Engr. Resus to make a note to his
wife, Dr. Resus stating that P300,000.00 be given. (ibid) After the note was signed,
Mondaga got the keys of the Volkswagen car and the motorcycle while Legarto was
brought along to Alegria. (ibid, p. 25) Engr. Resus and Maria Abne were left behind.
(ibid) When they arrived at Alegria, Mondaga ordered him to drive the Volkswagen in
going back to Diatagon while Mondaga drove the motorcycle of Legarto. (ibid.)

However, at Diatagon, Mondaga stopped Legarto near the School of Fisheries. (ibid.)
He was ordered to fetch Dr. Resus and bring her to Mondaga for final negotiation.
(ibid.) There was a threat not to disseminate the information because if he [did], then
Legarto's family [would] be killed, including himself. (ibid.)

He was able to find Dr. Resus at the house of a certain Nora Gubantes and told her he
was ordered to fetch her. Legarto asked Dr. Resus what [was] this incident about and
Legarto was told immediately to shut up. (ibid, p. 26) Legarto asked her of her
decision but was told to shut up again. (ibid.)

Dr. Resus rode with him in the Volkswagen car towards the area near the Fisheries
School at St. Catherine, Lianga, Surigao del Sur. (ibid.) At some point Mondaga joined
them in the car. Dr. Resus allowed Mondaga to sit at the back while she sat in front
seat beside Legarto. They talked about the money, and Dr. Resus pleaded that she
[could] only produce P100,000.00. (ibid, p. 27) Mondaga agreed, provided the
motorcycle of Legarto be included. (ibid.) Legarto, at this point, intervened and told
Dr. Resus not to include in the negotiation his motorcycle because the installment
was not yet fully paid. (ibid). Dr. Resus then told him to "just give his motorcycle."
(ibid) Then, Mondaga told Dr. Resus that Legarto would be the one who [would] bring
the money to Alegria. He agreed again because Dr. Resus was his boss. (ibid.)

On August 22, 1992, at 4:00 in the afternoon, Eslao Gubantes and his son delivered
P136,000.00 to Legarto plus P200.00 for gasoline (ibid, p. 28). The P36,000.00 [was] to
be paid as partial payment for his motorcycle. (ibid)

When he filed his leave of his [sic] absence, he talked to his Superintendent Virgilio
Fernandez and others who told him he should have filed his leave of absence ahead
because nobody was detailed at the depot, (ibid, p. 29) but he told them that, there
was an emergency because Engr. Resus was held hostage and he [would] deliver the
money. (ibid.)
 On his way to Alegria, he met Dr. Resus together with her nephew riding a police car
(ibid). He was asked by Dra. Resus where the money [was] but he answered, he
brought along with him P100,000.00. (ibid.) Dr. Resus told him to bring also the
P36,000.00 and another P14,000.00 which was about to be given by Dr. Resus. (ibid.)
However, he advised Dr. Resus that he would bring only P100,000.00 because that
was what they [had] agreed upon. (ibid) If Mondaga objects [sic] he [would] just come
back. (ibid.) This was confirmed by Dr. Resus' nephew (ibid.)

Legarto proceeded to Alegria and subsequently delivered the money to Mondaga,

which resulted [in] the release of Engr. Resus, together with Maria Abne. (ibid, p. 30)
Engr. Resus and Maria Abne were brought back to Lianga, where they met Dr. Resus.
Mayor Layno of Lianga commented that if not for your driver and Maria Abne, Engr.
Resus [would] not be rescued. (ibid.) Engr. Resus and Dr. Resus remained at Lianga,
while he and Maria Abne proceeded to Diatagon. (ibid.)

On September 18, 1992, Legarto and Maria Abne were brought to the municipal
building to act as witnesses for Engr. and Dr. Resus. (ibid, p. 31) However, after
executing his affidavit before the Municipal Judge, he was arrested just when he went
out from the office (ibid, p. 31). He was brought to Patin-ay, Agusan del Sur, where he
was detained. (ibid, p. 32) While there, he wrote a letter to Engr. and Dr. Resus for
help. (ibid.) The letter expressed his sentiment and dismay that in spite of his help, he
was included in the case. (ibid, p. 33) He denied having driven Mondaga alias Bobong
Gonzaga at any other time.

Similarly, Maluenda denies knowledge of Mondaga's plan to commit the said crime. He
accompanied the latter to Mahilom only to mine for gold and not to plan, much less commit,
any crime. He alleges that he guarded the victim at the hut only because Mondaga threatened
to kill him and his family. Through counsel, Maluenda presents his own version of the facts,
as follows:10

Daniel Maluenda testified that on August 20, 1992 at around 10:00 o'clock in the
evening, he was in his house at Barobo when Raul Mondaga came over. Mondaga told
him that he [had] a tunnel in Mahilom and offered Maluenda a fifty-fifty proposition to
gold mine the tunnel. Maluenda, who [was] a farmer and at the same time a gold
miner, agreed to the proposition.

On August 21, 1992 at around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, Maluenda together with
Mondaga proceeded to Sitio Mahilom. Upon reaching Garden, Tambis, Surigao del
Sur, Mondaga tried to give Maluenda a pistol and grenade but Maluenda questioned
Mondaga's purpose for bringing the same since they were just looking for gold inside
the tunnel. Mondaga in turn told Maluenda to just follow what he [ordered] so that
nothing will happen to him, and that Mondaga [would] not hesitate to kill a person, so
Maluenda merely followed Mondaga as he was afraid.

Arriving at Mahilom, Mondaga and Maluenda proceeded to a hut where the latter saw
Engr. Resus and some other persons. Mondaga ordered Maluenda to stay in the hut
and feed these persons. Maluenda in turn retorted that their agreement was to mine
for gold, but Mondaga told him "to just follow my order so that nothing will happen to
you, or else I will blast your head and kill your family." Inside the hut, Maluenda and
Engr. Resus talked and planned to escape.
 The next day at around 2:00 in the afternoon, Maluenda, together with Engr. Resus,
left but when they reached Alegria, they met Mondaga. Mondaga approached Engr.
Resus, held his hand and said, do not be afraid because you can go home. Mondaga
also told Maluenda not to report the matter to the authorities otherwise, they [would]
all be killed.

Maluenda denied that he was at the clinic of Dra. Resus on August 19, 1992.
Furthermore, he denied having received any money from Mondaga. (TSN, November
24, 1993, pp. 50-59)

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court convicted Legarto, Maluenda and Mondaga, holding that they successfully
perpetrated a clear case of kidnapping. It gave complete credence to the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses whom it deemed unquestionably reliable, sincere and candid. The
lower court held that Mondaga was the mastermind of the kidnapping. While Appellant
Legarto portrayed himself as a good Samaritan to the Resus couple, the trial court stated that
he was a wolf in sheep's clothing and described his testimony as evasive, false and shallow.

The court a quo: "[A]s to how accused Raul Mondaga came out to know that the Resus
couple could pay ransom, the finger of suspicion points to Legarto as source."11 Legarto
failed to satisfactorily explain why he did not testify against Mondaga in the criminal case for
carnapping involving his motorcycle. His actuations from the outset until the time he
delivered the ransom money betrayed his active participation as a co-principal by
indispensable cooperation in the crime. Of the P136,000 handed to him for delivery to the
kidnappers, Legarto kept P36,000 for himself. Legarto confidently refused to accept P14,000
more from Dr. Resus, saying that what he had was already sufficient. He further failed to
report the incident to the police when he had the opportunity to do so.

The trial court also noted the following pieces of evidence which proved Legarto's
participation in the crime.

1. Witness Sanchez testified that she saw Mondaga frequenting Legarto's house in Diatagon,
and she even saw him and Mondaga riding on his motorcycle.

2. On August 20, 1992, Engineer Resus saw him convey Maluenda and "Alex" to Andanan,
where Maluenda and "Alex" boarded Engineer Resus' car.

3. He drove the victim's car back to Diatagon from Alegria.

4. He delivered Mondaga's ransom note to Dr. Resus.

5. He also delivered the ransom money to the kidnappers.

6. He used P36,000 of the ransom money to pay the balance of the purchase price of his
motorcycle.

All these allegedly show Legarto's participation as a co-principal by indispensable

cooperation in the crime.
Through the same witnesses for the prosecution, Maluenda, who introduced himself as
Commander Dongkoy, was positively identified as one of the men who went to Dr. Resus'
clinic on August 19, 1992. The kidnap victim also identified him as the guard at the hideout in
Alegria. Hence, the trial court convicted him as a co-principal.

Assignment of Errors

Legarto assigns the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court:12

I — The lower court erred in finding that, "as to how accused Raul Mondaga came to
know that the Resus couple could pay ransom, the finger of suspicion points to
Legarto, as source".

II — The lower court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Norma Sanchez.

III — The lower court erred in finding that, "with respect to accused Rodrigo Legarto,
there were several instances noted by the court which lead [sic] it to conclude that
this particular accused was part of the criminal scheme to commits [sic] said
kidnapping."

IV — The lower court erred in holding, "that he has all the opportunity to report such
criminal scheme to the police or military authorities, if he wanted to and his failure to
do so plainly indicated his part in the criminal plan; and his actuations from the outset
in a criminal plan was put to an [sic] effect, up to his rule [sic] in hand carrying the
ransom money which he turned over to Mondaga at the mountain hideout which he
know [sic] invetably, shows his active participation as a co-principal by
[indispensable] cooperation.

V — The lower court erred in not giving credence to the testimony of Rodrigo Legarto.

VI — The lower court erred in convicting the accused-appellant as co-principal of the

crime of kidnapping for ransom defined and penalized under the last par. of Art. 267 of
the Revised Penal Code as charged in the information and [in sentencing him] to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided by
law.

VII — The lower court erred in ordering the confiscation of appellant's motorcycle.

In the Supplemental Brief, Legarto's other counsel adds the following issues:13

I. The participation of Legarto was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

II. Legarto was convicted on mere suspicion of one prosecution witnesses.

III. Legarto [had] no motive in kidnapping Engr. Resus.

IV. Lower court erred in holding that Legarto [was] a co-principal by indispensable
cooperation.

V. The lower court erred in ordering the confiscation of the motorcycle of Legarto.
For his part, Maluenda submits the following as his lone assignment of error:14

The trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime charged despite the fact
that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

For clarity and order, the Court will separately discuss the participation of the appellants and
the probative value of the evidence presented against each of them.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is partially meritorious as regards Legarto who, in the light of the evidence
presented, should be held liable only as an accessory. In contrast, Maluenda's conviction
deserves affirmation, as his culpability in the kidnapping was clearly proven.

Legarto's Culpability

Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence

The solicitor general argues for the affirmation of Legarto's conviction on the ground that the
trial court's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is generally accorded
great respect on appeal. However, the Court believes that the resolution of this appeal
transcends the issue of the credibility of the witnesses. There is need to evaluate the
sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented to sustain Legarto's conviction.

The trial court found Legarto guilty as a principal by indispensable cooperation on the basis
of several pieces of circumstantial evidence, which the solicitor general depicts as clearly
demonstrating his participation. On the other hand, Legarto asserts that the same set of
evidence is frail and inconclusive.

Legarto's contention merits consideration. A principal by indispensable cooperation is

defined by Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code thus:

Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals:

xxx xxx xxx

3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without
which it would not have been accomplished.

Legarto cannot be convicted under this definition because the prosecution failed to allege,
much less prove, any overt act on his part showing direct participation in the kidnapping
itself, his participation in the incident being limited to acts committed after the abduction was
already consummated. He was not with the kidnappers (1) when they forcibly solicited money
and medicine from the Resus couple, (2) when they brought the kidnap victim to Alegria, and
(3) when Mondaga demanded ransom for the victim's release. Together with the Resus
housemaid, he accompanied Mondaga to the hideout in Alegria only upon Dr. Resus' request.
In short, the prosecution failed to piece together a clear story as to show Legarto figured in
the kidnapping caper.

Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to convict an accused as a principal by

indispensable cooperation in accordance with Sec. 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.15 It may
also show conspiracy. Thus, this Court meticulously examined the pleadings, the records
and the assailed Decision in order to evaluate the sufficiency of Legarto's conviction. The
pieces of circumstantial evidence used by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court are
enumerated and evaluated seriatin.

Acquaintance Is Inconclusive
Proof of Participation

That Mondaga frequented the house of Legarto in Diatagon proves that he knew the latter.
Witness Sanchez testified that she even saw them riding Legarto's motorcycle during the
town fiesta on June 24, 1992. However, this event occurred about two months before the
kidnapping on August 19 to 22, 1992. Considering that the prosecution did not present any
evidence to show that the plan to kidnap Engineer Resus was hatched as early as June 24,
1992, the fact that Legarto and Mondaga were together during the town fiesta should not be
considered as proof of Legarto's direct participation in the crime. Likewise, that Legarto was
acquainted with Mondaga does not prove that the former had a hand in the kidnapping.

Conveying Maluenda and Bueno

Does Not Conclusively
Prove Participation

The solicitor general harps on the fact that, on August 20, 1992, Legarto was seen
transporting Maluenda and "Alex" to Andanan on his motorcycle. He claims that this is
strong proof of Legarto's complicity, as it shows that Legarto had knowledge of the plan to
kidnap Engineer Resus. The trial court, for its part, said that this fact "points to the clear
perception that . . . he was part of the dubious criminal plan." The "fact" relied upon by the
solicitor general and the trial court, however, is a mere speculation. This is clear from
Engineer Resus' testimony, the pertinent portion of which is reproduced below: 16

Q On the following day, August 20, 1992, where were you?

A I was at my residence, sir.

Q While you were in your residence, what transpired, if there was any?

A I got ready of [sic] my car, at the same time Raul Mondaga came in,
sir.

Q What time did Raul Mondaga enter your residence?

A At about 5:00 o'clock early in the morning, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Where was the accused Maluenda at that time?

A At that time Maluenda was not around, sir.

Q Now, while you were preparing your car, what happened next?

A I parked my car infront [sic] of the clinic, sir.

 Q Then what happened next after parking your car infront [sic] of your
clinic?

A Raul Mondaga hurried me up to go with his companion who was

ferried by Rudy Legarto, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q When you arrived at Andanan, what happened?

A As we passed along Andanan, I met Rudy Legarto on the way going

back to Diatagon, with his two (2) passengers already alighted from his
motorcycle and waiting for us at Andanan and then took a ride with us
on our way to Barobo, sir. (Emphasis supplied.)

Engineer Resus merely said that he saw Legarto heading back to Diatagon. He did not
witness Maluenda and "Alex" on board Legarto's motorcycle or alighting therefrom; he only
saw the two at Andanan waiting for Mondaga and him. In fact, Engineer Resus did not
actually see Legarto transport Mondaga's companions. Hence, the statement that Legarto did
so is a conclusion unsupported by Resus' testimony, a mere speculation of the event
that might have preceded what Engineer Resus saw. Its true nature as a conjecture is evident
from the averment of the trial court that ". . . they were conveyed there by Rodrigo Legarto
with the use of his motorcycle, as he was even encountered on the road on his return back to
Diatagon that morning by Engr. Resus."

From the foregoing, it is clear that Legarto's alleged direct participation in the kidnapping is
without factual basis; it is nothing more than an inference drawn from a presumption. And
because circumstantial evidence not adequately established cannot become the basis of
conviction, such inference cannot be given evidentiary weight to support Legarto's
conviction as a principal by indispensable cooperation.17

No Specific Demand for Legarto's Motorcycle

The solicitor general avers that Mondaga's instruction to Dr. Resus to requisition Legarto's
motorcycle proves Legarto's complicity in the felonious scheme. The averment is inaccurate
because Mondaga, in accordance with Dr. Resus' testimony, had originally requisitioned the
victim's motorcycle, but the latter told him that it was out of order. 18 So, Mondaga asked for
Legarto's motorcycle instead.

That Mondaga chose Legarto's motorcycle when he could have demanded any other two-
wheel vehicle can be explained by the fact that, several times prior to the kidnapping, he had
taken a ride on the said motorcycle. Note that Legarto used the motorcycle as a vehicle for
hire in the area.

Delivering the Ransom Money

and Keeping Part of It
Do Not Prove Conspiracy

The solicitor general avers that the completes trust of Mondaga in Legarto, whom the former
designated as collector of the ransom money, proves the latter's participation. The trial court,
on the same point, said:19
 . . . His subsequent direct involvement in the negotiations with Dra. Resus when he
was made to drive the Volkswagen car to Diatagon, contact Dra. Resus in the final
negotiations, and delivery of the ransom money agreed upon [sic] to Raul Mondaga,
admitting having withheld at his house a part of the ransom money amounting to
P36,000.00(?) and paying off the balance of the motorcycle with it, as evidenced by the
receipt of payment, demonstrates very strongly and beyond doubt to [sic] his
participation in that criminal act, as now charged. . . .

The averments, however, are sufficiently rebutted by Legarto's allegation that, out of loyalty
to his former boss, the participated in the release of the
kidnap victim, not in his detention. The testimony of Engineer Resus — that Legarto was at
Alegria in order to fetch the former — is cited by the defense as follows:20

Q Do you confirm . . . the statements in these affidavits which you

subscribed and sworn [sic] to before Judge Ricardo L. Mosquerra III on
September 18, 1992 and September 23, 1992?

A Yes, Sir.

Q In your affidavit on September 16, 1992 subscribed before Judge

Mosquerra, you never mentioned Rudy Legarto as one of the
kidnappers, am I correct?

A Yes, Sir.

Q In fact, you will agree [with] me that the presence of Maria Abne and
Rudy Legarto was for them to fetch you. Am I correct?

A Yes, Sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Regarding the P36,000 which he kept, Legarto alleges that this was payment for his
motorcycle which was taken by Mondaga. He claims that he had initially refused to give his
motorcycle to Mondaga, but was prevailed upon by Dr. Resus who told him that she would
replace it.21 Confirming this, Dr. Resus testified that she told Mrs. Gubantes that the money
was payment for Legarto's motorcycle, 22 not his share in the ransom. Thus, such payment
could not rationally constitute evidence of direct participation or of conspiracy in the
kidnapping.

Non-appearance at the Hearings

of the Carnapping Case

The solicitor general and the trial court posit the direct participation was established by the
failure of Legarto to testify against Mondaga in the criminal case for the carnapping of
Legarto's motorcycle. The excuses of Legarto for his inability to attend the hearings — that
he did not have transportation and that he had stomach ache — were branded by the solicitor
general as "flimsy and incredible." After all, Legarto was able to appear sans such problems
when the trial court ordered the release of the motorcycle.
The contention is untenable. Legarto's lack of merits in pursuing the criminal case against
Mondaga may be less than laudable, but it does not necessarily show direct participation in
the kidnapping. Dismissal of cases due to failure to prosecute is a common legal experience.
Legarto's excuses for failing to prosecute may be dubious, but they cannot become the basis
for his conviction as a principal by indispensable cooperation in this case.

"Finger of Accusation"
Was Baseless

In the assailed Decision, the trial court states, "As to how accused Raul Mondaga came to
know that the Resus couple could pay [the] ransom, the finger of suspicion points to Legarto
as [the] source"23 However, an examination of the transcripts of stenographic notes reveals
no testimony that Legarto provided the kidnappers with information regarding the spouse's
finances. This was pure speculation or suspicion-nothing more, nothing less.

Elements Required to Convict

By Circumstantial Evidence

A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires the concurrence of the following

elements: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances produces a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.24 For such a conviction to withstand judicial scrutiny,
the prosecution must further show that all the circumstances are inconsistent with the
hypothesis that the accused is innocent or with any other rational hypothesis except that of
his guilt.25

In this case, the totality of the pieces of circumstantial evidence being imputed to Legarto
does not foreclose the possibility that he took no part in the criminal enterprise and does not,
therefore, overcome his constitutional right to be presumed innocent.26

The presumption of innocence is founded upon substantive law and basic principles of
justice. It serves to balance the scales of justice in what would otherwise be an uneven
contest between a single individual accused of a crime and the prosecution which has all the
resources of the government at its command. Thus, this presumption cannot be overcome by
mere suspicion or conjecture that the defendant probably committed the crime or that he had
the opportunity to do so. The prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the accused must be set free in accordance with the
rule that conflicts in and insufficiency of evidence must be resolved in favor of the theory of
innocence rather than the theory of guilt.27

Same Circumstances Do Not

Conclusively Show Conspiracy

Although the trial court did not pass upon conspiracy as a source of Legarto's culpability, we
deem it proper to do so, since it was alleged in the Information. In theory, conspiracy exists
when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.28 Once established, the act of one becomes the act of all. Further,
conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly as the commission of the offense itself,
although direct proof is not essential.29 Prior agreement or assent to the crime is usually
inferred from the acts of the accused showing concerted action, common design and
objective, actual cooperation, concurrence of sentiments, or community of interest.30 In most
cases, like the one at bar, proof of conspiracy is frequently made by evidence of a chain of
circumstances only.31 But such proof must always be established by evidence that satisfies
the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.32

In Legarto's case, conspiracy was not at all established by the prosecution. The familiarity
between Legarto and Mondaga is insufficient proof, as conspiracy transcends
companionship.33 Moreover, Mondaga's act of meeting Legarto on the road to Andanan does
not show conspiracy, because a merely casual or unintended meeting, like passive presence,
is not proof of conspiracy.34 Similarly insufficient as circumstantial evidence to prove
conspiracy were Mondaga's demand for the use of Legarto's motorcycle, Legarto's collecting
the ransom money and delivering part of it, and Legarto's collecting the ransom money and
delivering part of it, and Legarto's failure to testify against Mondaga due to either refusal or
neglect. We stress that conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere inferences and
conjectures.35 Without an allegation of any overt act showing community with the kidnappers,
inferences do not adequately establish participation in a criminal conspiracy.36

Legarto's Criminal Liability

Despite its belief that Legarto was not a co-principal or a co-conspirator, this Court cannot
completely free him from criminal liability. Established by the prosecution are the following:
(1) he reported the "loss" of the motorcycle to the police authorities despite the fact that it
had been given to Mondaga as part of the ransom; (2) he had received P36,000 for it; (3) he
paid the balance of the purchase price of the motorcycle with the said money; and (4) he
claimed, regained and retained its possession.

Legarto may not have had a direct hand in the kidnapping, but he received part of the ransom
and used it to pay off his arrears in his motorcycle loan. Thus, having knowledge of the
kidnapping for ransom and without having directly participated therein, he took part in the
crime subsequent to its commission by profiting from its effects.37 He may not be the devil
with the face of an angel that the trial court described, but he is definitely not a saint. He is
criminally liable as an accessory to the crime of kidnapping for ransom.

Under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, accessories are defined as those who (1) have
knowledge of the commission of the crime, (2) did not take part in its commission as
principal or accomplice, but (3) took part in it subsequent to its commission by any of the
three modes enumerated in this article, 38 one of which is by profiting or by assisting the
offender to profit from the effects of the crime. 39 These elements are all present and proven in
Legarto's case.

As an accessory to the consummated crime of kidnapping, the penalty imposable upon

Legarto is two degrees lower than that prescribed by law under Article 267 of the said
Code. 40 Since no modifying circumstance is appreciated for or against him, the imposable
penalty should be in the medium period of the indeterminate sentence applicable under RA
4103, as amended. 41

Affirmation of Maluenda's Conviction

Acquittal is sought by Maluenda on the ground that only Mondaga executed the acts
constituting kidnapping with ransom; i.e., demanding and receiving money, medicine and
ransom from the Resus couple and detaining Engineer Resus. He avers that his presence at
the hideout in Alegria was involuntary because Mondaga had threatened his life and the lives
of the members of his family.
Such contention is patently bereft of merit, Maluenda's conviction deserves affirmation based
on the precept that actions speak louder than words. Established by the prosecution beyond
cavil was his direct participation in the criminal conspiracy to kidnap Engineer Resus, who
testified that Maluenda was one of the men who had, on the night of August 19, 1992,
extorted money and medicine from him and his wife who corroborated this story.42 Engineers
Resus testified:43

Q: So what time did you arrive at your residence?

A About 9:45 in the evening, more or less, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. ALVIZO:

Q: When you arrived [at] your residence, what happened, if any?

WITNESS:

A: When I arrived at our house, the midwife on duty told us that we

[had] visitors, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Who were your visitors?

A: Alias Bobong Gonzaga but his true name, after interrogation by the
police which I happened to know later, is Raul Mondaga, sir. And the
other one is Dongkoy but after interrogation by the police, they told me
that the true name is Daniel Maluenda; then alias"Alex" whose identity
is still unknown because he is not yet arrested. These were the three (3)
people in my residence at that time, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: What happened, after introducing themselves to you?

xxx xxx xxx

A: This Raul Mondaga drew his revolver and also his grenade ready to
be blown-up and introduced himself to us that NPA Commander Father
Simon [had] instructed them to solicit funds for the victims in the recent
Melali, Agusan del Sur, military-NPA encounter, sir.

The kidnap victim also testified that he conducted Maluenda and his companions to Alegria
in his car the following day:44

Q: When you arrived [at] Andanan, what happened?

WITNESS:
 A: As we passed along Andana, I met Rudy Legarto on the way going
back to Diatagon [sic], with his two (2) passengers already alighted
from his motorcycle and waiting for us at Andanan and then took a ride
with us on our way to Barobo, sir.

Q: Who were your passengers then when you reached Barobo?

A: Paul Mondaga, Maluenda and alias Alex, sir.

Maluenda also guarded the victim at the farm hut in Alegna.45

Q: (PROS. CALVIZO)

Where did you go?

A: (ENGR. RESUS)

We went to the mountain and hiked for almost two (2) hours between
the boundary of Garden and Alegria, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: While you were there, what happened next, if any?

A: Raul Mondaga told me that he [had] forgotten something, he [had] to

go back and I [had] to stay there because the camp of the NPA still
further away and that we [had] to pass the night in that NPA hut, sir.

Q: Who were your companions in that place?

A: Daniel Maluenda and Alex plus another reinforcement, Gil Bueno, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: In the following morning, August 21, 1992, what happened next?

xxx xxx xxx

A: When Raul Mondaga arrived with a note from my wife and that was
the time when they started to grind me, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. ALVIZO:

Q: After the accused Raul Mondaga took the note from you, what
happened next?

xxx xxx xxx

 WITNESS:

A: I waited at the farmhut where I was guarded by the three (3) persons,
sir.

Q: Who were guarding you at that time?

A: Daniel Maluenda, Alex and Gil Bueno were guarding me at that time,
sir.

Engineer Resus' testimony that Maluenda guarded the kidnappers' hideout was corroborated
by Abne, the housemaid, as follows:46

Q: Where were you bound for with your companions, Rudy Legarto and
Bobong Gonzaga?

A: To the forest where Engr. Resus was kept or held, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Did you see Engr. Resus?

A: Yes, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: And what happened, after that?

A: Bobong Gonzaga and Rudy Legarto went back to Alegria, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: What about you, where were you?

A: I and Engr. Resus were left in theforest [sic] with the

guards, Alias Dongkoy and Alex, sir.

Q: And where did you spend your night on August 21, 1992?

A: In the forest, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: And who was one of the guards?

A: Alias Dongkoy, Alias Alex and Alias Gil, sir.

Although only Mondaga verbally extorted money and demanded ransom from the Resus
couple, it is evident that the kidnapping was committed with Maluenda's participation.
Beyond reasonable doubt, Maluenda's actions exhibited a community of interest and a
concurrence of sentiment with Mondaga. Consequently inevitable as they relate to Maluenda
are the following holdings of the trial court:47

. . . Simply stated, the witnesses for the prosecution, in contrast to that [of] the
defense, are, in the Court's, assessment, unquestionably reliable, sincere and candor
[sic] in their testimonies which [were] very logical and credible.

xxx xxx xxx

and, as between the affirmative testimony of the prosecution witnesses and that of the
negative versions of the defense, the former [was] more stronger [sic]. The accuseds
[sic] resorted to unfounded denials.

xxx xxx xxx

To summarize, the Court finds that a clear case of kidnapping for ransom [had] been
successfully committed by all the accuseds [sic] charged in the information, who are
all private individuals; that the victim of that heinous crime [was] Engr. Miguel E.
Resus; that ransom money was actually paid in consideration of his release on the
third day that he was forcibly deprived of his liberty; . . . .

Accused Raul Mondaga, alias Bobong Gonzaga, and Accused Daniel

Maluenda alias Commander Dongkoy have both been positively identified as among
the active perpetrators. . . .

Insofar as Maluenda is concerned, we find applicable the well-entrenched rule that the factual
findings of the trial court are binding on the appellate
court.48 In this light, our earlier holding negating the trial court's assessment of the
circumstantial evidence pertains only to Appellant Legarto, not to Appellant Maluenda.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is partially granted. The assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED as
regards Maluenda, but MODIFIED as regards Legarto. Legarto is hereby found GUILTY as an
ACCESSORY only and is ORDERED to serve the indeterminate sentence of two (2) years, four
(4) months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one day
of prision mayor, as maximum. He is further ordered to RETURN to Engineer and Dr. Miguel
E. Resus the amount of thirty-six thousand pesos (P36,000) corresponding to the amount he
used to pay his loan arrears. The amount which the trial court ordered to be restituted by
Mondaga and Maluenda is accordingly reduced by said amount.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Vitug and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Penned by Judge Bernardo V. Saludares; rollo, pp. 14-37.

2 Rollo, p. 6.

3 Records, p. 74.
4 Records, pp. 116-117.

5 Rollo, pp. 36-37.

6 Rollo, pp. 38-39.

7 Rollo, pp. 123-124. This case was deemed submitted for decision on October
29, 1996 upon the submission of the Appellee's Brief. The filing of a reply brief
was deemed waived.

8 Rollo, pp. 136-147. References to the TSNs were omitted.

9 Supplemental Brief for Appellant Legarto prepared by the Misa Law Office, as
represented by Attys. Claudine O. Montenegro and Joaquin L. Misa, pp. 3-
10; rollo, pp. 166-173. Atty. Romeo C. Buenaflor filed the main Appellant's Brief
for Legarto.

10 Rollo, pp. 226g-226h. Appellant Maluenda's Brief was signed by Attys.

Exaltacion L. Carlos, Arceli Adan-Rubin, Amelia C. Garchitorena and Jerry F.
Ibay of the Public Attorney's Office.

11 Rollo, p. 21.

12 Rollo, pp. 53-54.

13 Rollo, p. 175.

14 Rollo, p. 226-b.

15 "Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial

evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction

beyond reasonable doubt." People vs. Ragon, G.R. No. 100593, November 18,
1997, pp. 8-9; People vs. Verano, 264 SCRA 546, 554, November 21, 1996; and
People vs. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167, 178, November 14, 1996.

16 TSN, March 16, 1993, pp. 9-11.

17 People vs. Parel, 261 SCRA 720, 736, September 16, 1996, per Bellosillo, J.

18 TSN, March 17, 1993, p. 51.

19 Rollo, p. 31.

20 TSN, March 16, 1993, pp. 24-25.

21 TSN, March 17, 1993, pp. 56-57; and TSN, November 23, 1993, p. 27.

22 Ibid., pp. 62 & 87.

23 Rollo, p. 21.

24 People vs. Ragon, G.R. No. 100593, November 18, 1997, p. 8-9; People vs.
Verano, 264 SCRA 546, 554, November 21, 1996; and People vs. Malimit, 2643
SCRA 167, 178, November 14, 1996.

25 People vs. Casingal, 243 SCRA 37, 44, March 29, 1995, p. 44; and People vs.
Abitona, 240 SCRA 335, 340, January 20, 1995.

26 People vs. Verano, supra, p. 554; People vs. Dulatre, Jr., 248 SCRA 107, 120-
121, September 7, 1995.

27 People vs. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676, 727-728, December 6, 1995.

28 People vs. Abarri, 242 SCRA 39, 45, March 1, 1995; People vs. Cayanan, 245
SCRA 66, 77 June 16, 1995.

29 People vs. Salodaga, 247 SCRA 98, 106, August 7, 1995; People vs. Dulatre,
Jr., supra, p. 119.

30 People vs. Miranday, 242 SCRA 620, 627, March 23, 1995; People vs. Torres,
247 SCRA 212, 217-218, August 11, 1995; People vs. Asoy, 251 SCRA 682, 689,
December 29, 1995; People vs. Tami, 244 SCRA 1, 22, May 2, 1995; People vs.
Compil, 244 SCRA 135, 145, May 15, 1995; People vs. De Leon, 245 SCRA 538,
546-547, July 3, 1995.

31 People vs. Miranday, supra.

32 People vs. Orehuela, 232 SCRA 82, 93, April 29, 1994; People vs.
Villagonzalo, 238 SCRA 215, 230-231, November 18, 1994; Fonacier vs.
Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 655, 695, December 5, 1994.

33 People vs. Padrones, 189 SCRA 496, 506-507, September 13, 1990 per
Sarmiento, J.

34 People vs. Vda. de Quijano, 220 SCRA 66, 71, March 17, 1993; People vs.
Buntan, Sr. 221 SCRA 421, 430, April 12, 1993; People vs. Garcia, 215 SCRA
349, 361, November 4, 1992.

35 People vs. Halili, 245 SCRA 340, 352, June 27, 1995; Sabiniano vs. Court of
Appeals, 249 SCRA 24, 29, October 6, 1995; People vs. Argawanon, 231 SCRA
614, 618, March 30, 1994.

36 People vs. Orehuela, supra, p. 94.

37 Art. 18, Revised Penal Code.

38 People vs. Lojo, 122 SCRA 753, 757-758, June 24, 1983.

39 Art. 19(1); People vs. Cordova, 224 SCRA 319, 338, July 5, 1993; People vs.
Verzola, 80 SCRA 600, 608, December 21, 1977; and People vs. Amajul, 1 SCRA
682, 689-690, February 28, 1961.

40 Art. 53, Revised Penal Code.

41 Art. 64(1), Revised Penal Code.

42 TSN, March 17, 1993, pp. 40-47.

43 TSN, March 16, 1993, pp. 4-7.

44 Ibid., pp. 10-11.

45 Ibid., pp. 11-15.

46 TSN, June 2, 1993, pp. 3-8.

47 Rollo, pp. 31-34.

48 People vs. Ramos, 240 SCRA 191, 201, January 18, 1995; People vs. Dolar,
et al., 231 SCRA 414, 422-423, March 24, 1994; People vs. De Guzman, 216
SCRA 754, 759-760, December 21, 1992.