People of the Philippines vs. Cunanan, et al.

Conspiracy to commit kidnapping with ransom may be established by circumstantial evidence showing that the accused, a member of the same armed detachment, knowingly guarded the captives throughout their detention and received a share of the ransom; direct proof of a prior agreement is unnecessary, and a co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession may serve only to corroborate the prosecution witnesses.

Lope Cunanan, alias Commander Perla and addressed by his men as “Capt. Mendoza,” led a Hukbalahap detachment to which Raymundo Abesamis belonged. Dr. Zosimo Fernandez and his wife Dorotea, their daughter Fe, and driver Buenaventura Fernandez were residents of Pagsanjan, Laguna. The offense was prosecuted as kidnapping with ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18, the crime having been committed before the approval of Republic Act No. 1084 on June 15, 1954.

The lower court found, and it is not disputed, that at about 7:30 p.m. on April 23, 1953, Dorotea Fernandez, wife of Dr. Zosimo Fernandez, their daughter Fe, and family driver Buenaventura Fernandez were forcibly taken from their house in Pagsanjan, Laguna, by a band of about seventeen armed men headed by Lope Cunanan, whom his men addressed as “Capt. Mendoza.” The captives were brought to the mountains. While in the hideout of the malefactors, Mrs. Fernandez copied, by Cunanan’s order, a letter he had prepared and addressed to Dr. Fernandez, demanding P80,000.00 for the release of Dorotea, Fe, and Buenaventura.

Three days later, the captives were taken further into the mountain fastness, where they stayed for thirteen days. During this period, Cunanan bade Mrs. Fernandez to write letters Exhibits C, D, and E, urging her husband to expedite the raising of the ransom money. Cunanan, as “Capt. Mendoza,” also exchanged correspondence with Dr. Fernandez regarding the amount of the ransom, which was eventually reduced to P40,000.00. Upon payment early on May 8, 1953, the captives were released.

Abesamis was positively identified by Mrs. Fernandez and Buenaventura Fernandez—Fe did not take the witness stand because she was abroad at the time of the hearing—as one of the armed men who guarded the complainants during the entire period of their captivity. The record showed that after being dragged from their house on April 23, 1953, the Fernandezes and their captors crossed a river and went afoot to the mountains; after passing steep trails, at about midnight they reached a place in the mountains where there was an improvised hut among coconut trees. Placed in that hut, the Fernandezes were heavily guarded not only during that evening but also during the entire period of their captivity. Among those who guarded them were Abesamis and his co-defendant Ruperto Esquillo, who did not appeal. Although there was no direct evidence as to the identity of each member of the band that went to the house on April 23, 1953, except as regards Cunanan, nothing indicated that there had been a change in the band or in its composition at any time during the period. The record suggested no change in the composition of the group from the midnight of April 23 to the early morning of April 24, when Mrs. Fernandez and Buenaventura Fernandez first recognized Abesamis among their captors, and there was evidence that the same group of men guarded the captives from April 24 to May 8, 1953. The kidnapping was carried out by Huks under the command of “Capt. Mendoza,” or Lope Cunanan, and Abesamis admittedly belonged to the Huk detachment under that command.

On May 7, 1953, upon receipt of information that an understanding had been reached with Dr. Fernandez, there was general rejoicing in the second hideout of the malefactors. At about 4:00 p.m., the latter proceeded with their captives from the second hideout to the first hideout, which they reached at about 8:00 p.m. The next day, a man came and said, “they are ready, they are there,” evidently referring to the bearers of the ransom money. At about 2:00 p.m., the malefactors brought the captives down the mountain to a brook, on a slope where several friends of the Fernandezes were waiting with a bundle wrapped in a plastic cloth. The bundle was delivered to Mrs. Fernandez, who, following instructions said to have been given by Dr. Fernandez, opened the bundle and counted the money contained therein. After verifying that it amounted to P40,000.00, Mrs. Fernandez delivered the money to Cunanan, who took P10,000.00 for himself, gave P6,000.00 to his “lieutenant,” and divided the balance among the other members of his detachment—including Abesamis. After a brief wait, the captives were released. The trial court found that Abesamis was among those who guarded the captives and that he received a share of the ransom.

• Inadmissibility of Cunanan’s Extrajudicial Confession: Appellant Abesamis argued that the only direct evidence of the conspiracy was Cunanan’s extrajudicial confession, which was inadmissible to establish that Abesamis was one of those who forcibly took the Fernandezes from their house on April 23, 1953.
• Lack of Knowledge of Ransom Purpose: Appellant maintained that it had not been proven that he knew the captives had been kidnapped for purposes of ransom.
• Mere Guard Duty: Appellant argued that, as a member of the corps of security guards of the Hukbalahap under Cunanan, his guarding of the bases of operation where the captives were kept before their release did not necessarily show that he was privy to the crime charged.

• Conspiracy — Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the evidence sufficiently established conspiracy between Abesamis and Cunanan to commit kidnapping with ransom, where the only direct evidence of conspiracy was Cunanan’s extrajudicial confession.
• Knowledge of Ransom Purpose: Whether it was proven that Abesamis knew the captives had been kidnapped for purposes of ransom.
• Mere Guard Duty: Whether Abesamis’s service as a security guard for the Hukbalahap detachment, guarding the bases of operation where the captives were kept, negated his participation in the conspiracy.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty could be imposed for kidnapping with ransom attended by nighttime and armed men constituting a band.

• Conspiracy — Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. Conspiracy was established by circumstantial evidence: Abesamis was positively identified as a guard throughout the captivity, belonged to Cunanan’s Huk detachment, and received a share of the P40,000.00 ransom; Cunanan’s extrajudicial statement merely corroborated the prosecution witnesses.
• Knowledge of Ransom Purpose: Yes. The general rejoicing upon notice of the agreement with Dr. Fernandez, the assurances that the captives would be released upon payment, and Abesamis’s actual receipt of a share of the ransom showed he knew the captives were held for ransom and shared the common design.
• Mere Guard Duty: No. Guarding the captives was not an innocent act; it formed part of the kidnapping-for-ransom scheme, and his receipt of a share of the ransom confirmed his participation in the conspiracy.
• Penalty: No. Although the crime was attended by nighttime and armed men constituting a band, the death penalty could not be imposed for lack of the required number of votes and because the band head, Cunanan, had been sentenced to life imprisonment.

• Conspiracy — Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court rejected the argument that the only direct evidence of conspiracy was Cunanan’s extrajudicial confession. The record showed that Abesamis was positively identified by Mrs. Fernandez and Buenaventura Fernandez as one of the armed men who guarded them during the entire captivity. Although there was no direct evidence identifying every member of the band that seized the Fernandezes, nothing indicated any change in the band’s composition from the midnight of April 23 to the early morning of April 24, when Abesamis was first recognized, and evidence showed the same group guarded the captives from April 24 to May 8, 1953. Abesamis admittedly belonged to the Huk detachment under Cunanan’s command. The incriminatory statements in Cunanan’s extrajudicial statement merely corroborated the prosecution witnesses and indicated their veracity. These circumstances sufficiently established conspiracy.

• Knowledge of Ransom Purpose: The Court found that Abesamis knew the captives were kidnapped for ransom. The kidnapping was carried out by Huks under Cunanan, and because the purpose was ransom, each conspirator had a special interest in the scheme. None would normally allow a stranger to intervene, as he could jeopardize the plan and their security and could demand a share of the ransom, reducing the original conspirators’ shares. Moreover, Abesamis was present at the general rejoicing and vociferous expressions of happiness upon receipt of notice of the agreement with Dr. Fernandez; the captives were assured they would soon be released and would only have to wait for the ransom money; and Abesamis actually took a share of the P40,000.00 ransom. These facts left no room for doubt that he conspired with Cunanan and the other members of the detachment.

• Mere Guard Duty: The Court rejected the contention that Abesamis’s role as a security guard for the Hukbalahap, guarding the bases of operation where the captives were kept, did not necessarily show privity to the crime. His continuous guard duty over the captives, his membership in Cunanan’s detachment, his presence at the rejoicing over the ransom agreement, and his receipt of a share of the ransom demonstrated that his acts were integrated into the kidnapping-for-ransom scheme and that he shared the common criminal design. These circumstances, considered together, left no room for doubt as to his conspiracy.

• Penalty: The Court noted that the crime was perpetrated at nighttime, with the assistance of armed men, constituting a band. Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18, the maximum penalty for the offense was death. However, the crime was committed before the approval of Republic Act No. 1084 on June 15, 1954. The death penalty could not be imposed upon Abesamis for lack of the number of votes necessary therefor, owing to the fact that the head of the band, Lope Cunanan, had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court therefore affirmed the lower court’s sentence of life imprisonment.

• Conspiracy proved by circumstantial evidence — Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement; it may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showing a common design and concerted action. In this case, Abesamis’s continuous guard duty over the captives, membership in Cunanan’s Huk detachment, presence at the rejoicing over the ransom agreement, and receipt of a share of the P40,000.00 ransom established his participation in the conspiracy.
• Extrajudicial confession of a co-conspirator as corroborative evidence — The incriminatory statements in Cunanan’s extrajudicial confession were not the sole basis of conviction; they merely corroborated the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and indicated their veracity. The conviction rested on the positive identification of Abesamis and the circumstantial evidence of his acts.
• Knowledge of the criminal purpose and receipt of ransom share — One who knowingly guards kidnap victims and later accepts a share of the ransom is a co-conspirator in kidnapping with ransom. The Court reasoned that no stranger would be allowed into the conspiracy because he could jeopardize the plan and demand a share of the ransom, and Abesamis’s actual receipt of a share confirmed his knowing participation.
• Penalty for kidnapping with ransom under Article 267, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18 — The maximum penalty was death, but it could not be imposed for lack of the required number of votes and because the band head had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The crime was committed before the approval of Republic Act No. 1084 on June 15, 1954.

• "The incriminatory statements — to the effect that Abesamis was a member of the band that took the Fernandezes from their house in the evening of April 23, 1953, and he was a party to conspiracy to commit the crime charged — found in Cunanan's extra-judicial statement, merely corroborated the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and is indicative of their veracity." — The Court treated Cunanan’s extrajudicial statement as corroborative only, not as the sole basis for the conspiracy finding, and relied instead on the prosecution witnesses’ positive identification.
• "These events, which took place in the presence of Abesamis — particularly, the general rejoicing and rather vociferous expressions of happiness made upon receipt of notice of the agreement reached with Dr. Fernandez, in the course of which the captives were assured that they would soon be released and that they would only have to wait for the ransom money, and the share thereof actually taken by Abesamis — considered in relation to the other facts adverted to above, leave no room for doubt that Abesamis was in conspiracy with Cunanan and the other members of his detachment in the commission of the crime charged." — This is the ratio decidendi on conspiracy: Abesamis’s presence at the rejoicing over the ransom agreement and his actual receipt of a share of the ransom, together with the other circumstances, established his participation beyond doubt.
• "Although the same was perpetrated at night time, with the assistance of armed men, constituting a band, the maximum of the penalty prescribed by the law(Articles 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 18[the crime charged was committed before the approval of Republic Act No. 1084, on June 15, 1954]) for said offense — namely death — cannot be imposed upon appellant herein, for lack of the number of votes necessary therefor, owing to the fact that the head of the band, Lope Cunanan, had been sentenced to life imprisonment." — This explains why the death penalty was not imposed despite the attendance of nighttime and armed band, because the required number of votes was lacking and the band head had been sentenced to life imprisonment.

• Article 267, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18 — This was the law charged and applied. The Court noted the crime was committed before the approval of Republic Act No. 1084 on June 15, 1954, so the applicable penalty was that prescribed by Article 267 as amended by Republic Act No. 18. The maximum penalty was death, but it could not be imposed for lack of the required number of votes and because the band head had been sentenced to life imprisonment.
• Republic Act No. 1084 — Mentioned as approved on June 15, 1954, after the commission of the crime. The Court used this date to identify the applicable law as Article 267 as amended by Republic Act No. 18, not Republic Act No. 1084.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez, David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.