People of the Philippines vs. Abundio Roluna

The disputable presumption of death under Section 5 (x) (3), Rule 131, Rules of Court establishes only the fact of presumptive death; it does not authorize a further presumption that the person last seen with the absentee caused the death, which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where only the fact of kidnapping is established and none of the circumstances in Article 267, Revised Penal Code, is proved, the crime is slight illegal detention under Article 268, not kidnapping with murder.

Anatalio Moronia was a resident of barangay Amguhan, Baybay, Leyte. Abundio Roluna was a neighbor and, at one point, chairman of the Kabataang Barangay; the two prosecution witnesses, Conrado Sombilon and Buenaventura Nogalada, were also residents of the same barangay. The legal backdrop includes Section 5 (x) (3), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, which presumes death for a person in danger of death whose existence has not been known for four years, and Articles 267 and 268 of the Revised Penal Code, which define kidnapping with serious illegal detention and slight illegal detention, respectively.

On June 26, 1990, an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Baybay, Leyte, charging eight persons—Abundio Roluna, Carlos Daguing, Paterno Daguing, Mamerto Asmolo, Teodulfo Daguing, Federico Simpron, Bienvenido Simpron, and Didoc Bongcalos—with kidnapping with murder. It alleged that on or about May 27, 1984, in Baybay, Leyte, they conspired and mutually helped one another, with firearms and superior strength, hogtied and kidnapped Anatalio Moronia and took him to an unknown place where he was killed. Only Roluna was arrested, tried, and convicted; the other seven accused remained at large.

The prosecution presented Conrado Sombilon and Buenaventura Nogalada, both residents of barangay Amguhan, Baybay, Leyte. Sombilon testified that on May 27, 1984, around seven o’clock in the morning, while on his way to sitio Bungabungan in barangay Amguhan to attend to the pasture of his carabao, he saw at a distance of thirty meters his neighbor Anatalio Moronia stopped in his tracks and taken captive by Roluna, who was accompanied by seven other persons: Didoc Bongcalos, Federico Simpron, Bienvenido Simpron, Teodulfo Daguing, Carlos Daguing, Mamerto Asmolo, and Paterno Daguing. Roluna was armed with an armalite while his companions carried short firearms. Sombilon saw Carlos Daguing tie Moronia’s hands behind his back with an abaca strip. Frightened, he did not shout for help and proceeded on his way; except for his wife, he did not inform anyone about what he saw.

Nogalada corroborated Sombilon in substance. On the same day, around nine o’clock in the morning, coming from his farm in barangay Monterico, Baybay, and on his way home to barangay Amguhan, he saw at a distance of about twenty-five meters Moronia walking along a human trail in barangay Amguhan with his hands tied by a rope behind his back. Moronia was followed by Roluna, Carlos Daguing, and five other persons whom Nogalada did not recognize. Roluna was carrying an armalite while Carlos Daguing was armed with a pistol. Frightened, Nogalada immediately left the place. From that time on, both witnesses testified, Moronia was never seen or heard from.

At trial, Roluna denied the charge and interposed alibi. He claimed that on May 24, 1984, Danilo Noroño, a cousin of his wife, went to their house in barangay Amguhan and informed them that Iluminada Cortines y Noroño, his wife’s grandmother, was bedridden and seriously ill. He and his wife immediately proceeded to Iluminada’s house in barangay Banahaw, Baybay, Leyte. Upon arrival, he gathered herbal plants for Iluminada, boiled them, and regularly applied them to her body. He and his wife attended to Iluminada for three weeks; after she recuperated, they returned to their home in barangay Amguhan. His wife, Teresita Roluna, and his grandmother-in-law, Iluminada Cortines de Noroño, corroborated him in substance.

Roluna charged that Sombilon and Nogalada testified falsely because they harbored ill-feelings against him. He claimed that in 1983, he and Sombilon had a dispute over a cara y cruz game held in their barangay; Sombilon was then drunk, and Roluna, as chairman of the Kabataang Barangay, tried to pacify him, but Sombilon got mad at him, and since then they had not talked with each other. Nogalada, on the other hand, also had a grudge against him; in 1982, they had an altercation during a volleyball game held during the barangay fiesta.

The trial court convicted Roluna, and he appealed.

• Corpus Delicti Not Proved: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping with murder because the corpus delicti was not duly proved by the prosecution.
• Absence of Body and Possibility of Life: He maintained that since the body of Anatalio Moronia was never found, Moronia’s questionable and unexplained absence and disappearance should not be blamed on him, as the alleged victim may still be alive.
• Denial and Alibi: At trial, Roluna denied the charge and claimed alibi, asserting that from May 24, 1984, he and his wife attended to his seriously ill grandmother-in-law, Iluminada Cortines, in barangay Banahaw for three weeks, corroborated by his wife and grandmother-in-law.
• Ill-Feelings of Witnesses: He claimed that prosecution witnesses Sombilon and Nogalada harbored ill-feelings against him arising from a 1983 cara y cruz dispute and a 1982 volleyball altercation, respectively.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The People contended that the fact of Moronia’s death and the culpability of accused-appellant were sufficiently established by the evidence.
• Presumption of Death: The People relied on Section 5 (x) (3), Rule 131, arguing that Moronia was last seen on May 27, 1984, with his hands tied and accompanied by eight armed men, placing him in danger of death, and that his absence and silence for six years raised the presumption that he was killed by accused-appellant and his companions.

• Proof of Death: Whether the circumstances proved by the prosecution are sufficient to establish the death of Anatalio Moronia.
• Criminal Responsibility for Death: Whether, if death is established, accused-appellant and his companions could be held liable therefor.

• Proof of Death: Yes. The circumstances sufficiently raised the disputable presumption of death under Section 5 (x) (3), Rule 131, Rules of Court, because Moronia was last seen with his hands tied and in the company of eight armed men, placing him in danger of death, and his existence had not been known for more than four years.
• Criminal Responsibility for Death: No. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant or his companions caused Moronia’s death; the presumption of death did not authorize a further presumption that the person last seen with the absentee caused the death. Only the fact of kidnapping was established, and since none of the circumstances in Article 267, Revised Penal Code, was proved, the crime is slight illegal detention under Article 268, attended by band.

• Proof of Death: The Court defined corpus delicti as the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, the fact that a crime has actually been committed; as applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is a compound fact consisting of (1) the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of that act or result. As to Moronia’s death, the fact that he was last seen on May 27, 1984, with his hands tied at the back and accompanied by eight armed men showed that his life was then in danger or peril. Coupled with the fact that he had been absent and unheard from since that time until trial, a total of six years, the presumption of death under Section 5 (x) (3), Rule 131 was sufficiently raised. This established the presumptive death of Moronia.
• Criminal Responsibility for Death: The circumstances presented by the prosecution were not enough to hold accused-appellant responsible for Moronia’s death. In People vs. Sasota, the Court affirmed a murder conviction although the victim’s body was not found, ruling that in murder or homicide it is not necessary to recover the body or show where it can be found, provided death and the criminal agency causing death are proven, and recognizing that these may be presumed or established by circumstantial evidence. Sasota was inapplicable because there the prosecution witnesses saw the four armed accused forcibly take the victim from his house to a lake, beating him all the way to the boat, and continue ill-treating him until he died. Here, the witnesses merely saw Carlos Daguing tie Moronia’s hands; Moronia was taken in the direction of barangay Monterico and was never seen or heard from again. At no point was it established that any of the eight accused beat Moronia or in any way laid a violent hand on him, and Nogalada testified that he did not hear any shot fired by any of the eight armed accused. Even the possible motive of accused-appellant and his group for abducting Moronia was not definitively established. The circumstances were insufficient to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt for kidnapping with murder. The disputable presumption applied only to establish Moronia’s presumptive death; the Rules did not authorize a further presumption that the person with whom the absentee was last seen was responsible for the subsequent unexplained absence or disappearance. The conviction could not rest on vague and nebulous facts. The accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and no less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. Since none of the circumstances in Article 267, Revised Penal Code, was proved and only the fact of kidnapping was established, the crime committed was slight illegal detention under Article 268. In its execution, more than three armed malefactors acted together, so the generic aggravating circumstance of band under Article 14 (6) attended the commission. There being no mitigating circumstance, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period as maximum and prision mayor as minimum was imposed.

• Corpus Delicti — The body or substance of the crime; in its primary sense, the fact that a crime has actually been committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is a compound fact consisting of (1) the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of that act or result. In this case, the death of Moronia was established by presumption, but the criminal agency causing death was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Presumption of Death under Section 5 (x) (3), Rule 131 — A person in danger of death under other circumstances whose existence has not been known for four years is presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate among the heirs. It is disputable. In this case, Moronia’s last being seen with his hands tied and with eight armed men placed him in danger of death; his absence and silence for six years raised the presumption of death. The presumption establishes only death, not that the person last seen with him caused the death.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Presumption of Innocence — An accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and no less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to convict him. The prosecution’s evidence did not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Roluna should be convicted of kidnapping with murder.
• Slight Illegal Detention and Band — If none of the circumstances in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is proved and only the fact of kidnapping is established, the crime is slight illegal detention under Article 268. When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of the crime, band under Article 14 (6) is a generic aggravating circumstance. With no mitigating circumstance, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period as maximum and prision mayor as minimum is imposed.

• "There being no evidence to the contrary, the disputable presumption under Section 5 (x) (3), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court would apply, but only insofar as to establish the presumptive death of Moronia. Whether accused-appellant is responsible for the death of Moronia is a different matter. The Rules did not authorize that from this disputable presumption of death, it should be further presumed that the person with whom the absentee was last seen shall be responsible for the subsequent unexplained absence/disappearance of the latter." — This is the ratio: the presumption of death establishes only death, not criminal responsibility.
• "Since none of the circumstances mentioned in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (kidnapping with serious illegal detention) was proved and only the fact of kidnapping of Anatalio Moronia was established, we find that the crime committed is slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code." — This states the reduction of the crime from kidnapping with murder to slight illegal detention.
• "In the execution of the crime, more than three (3) armed malefactors acted together in its commission. Thus, since the generic aggravating circumstance of band attended the commission of the crime and there being no mitigating circumstance present, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period as maximum and prision mayor as minimum should be imposed on accused-appellant." — This states the aggravating circumstance and the penalty imposed.

• People vs. Sasota, No. L-3544, April 18, 1952, 91 Phil. 111 — The Court cited this as the early case affirming a murder conviction despite the victim’s body not being found; it ruled that in murder or homicide it is not necessary to recover the body or show where it can be found, provided death and the criminal agency causing death are proven, and recognized that these may be presumed or established by circumstantial evidence. The Court distinguished it because the witnesses there saw the accused forcibly take and continuously ill-treat the victim until death, whereas here no violence causing death was established.

• Section 5 (x) (3), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Disputable presumption that a person in danger of death under other circumstances whose existence has not been known for four years is presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate among the heirs. Applied to establish Moronia’s presumptive death because he was last seen with his hands tied and with eight armed men and was unheard from for six years; not applied to presume Roluna’s responsibility for the death.
• Article 267, Revised Penal Code — Defines kidnapping with serious illegal detention. The Court found none of its circumstances proved; only the fact of kidnapping was established.
• Article 268, Revised Penal Code — Defines slight illegal detention. The Court held the crime committed was slight illegal detention because only kidnapping was established and none of Article 267’s circumstances was proved.
• Article 14 (6), Revised Penal Code — Defines band as a generic aggravating circumstance when more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a crime. Applied because more than three armed malefactors acted together in the kidnapping.
• Article 64 (3), Revised Penal Code — Rule for imposing the penalty when a generic aggravating circumstance is present and no mitigating circumstance exists. The Court imposed reclusion temporal in its maximum period as maximum and prision mayor as minimum.
• Section 1, Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), as amended — Basis for the indeterminate sentence imposed: twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, and Regalado, JJ.