Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18308)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Luis Taruc, et al., G.R. No. L-18308, April 30, 1966, Supreme Court En Banc, Dizon, J., writing for the Court. The appeal was taken by Cenon Bungay alias Cenon Bungue alias Rufing from a conviction in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga (Criminal Case No. 2053) for the murder of Father Teofilo Limlingan.The information charged Bungay together with Luis Taruc, Jose Mutuc, Gonzalo Labo and several named but deceased co-conspirators with conspiring to seize Father Limlingan on the night of July 10, 1946, under the pretext of officiating a marriage, carrying him to an isolated place in Balucuc, Apalit, Pampanga, tying his hands and causing his death by gunshot. At the trial the Assistant Provincial Fiscal moved to dismiss the case as to Luis Taruc (for lack of sufficient evidence) and Gonzalo Labo (because he had been killed previously); Jose Mutuc remained at large. The case proceeded only against Bungay, who pleaded not guilty.
Trial testimony established that at about 10:00–11:00 p.m. on July 10, 1946, Bungay joined a group led by Pedro Macapagal and Miguel Simbulan who decided to kidnap and kill Father Limlingan on the accusation that the priest had abused women. Simbulan, Bungay and another went to the convent, lured the priest out on the marriage pretext, took his robes, bound his hands, brought him to a nearby fishpond, where Jose Mutuc shot him; the body was dumped and concealed in the pond. In March 1947, while the pond was being emptied, skeletal remains were found with a belt and buckle bearing the initials T.G.L.; the remains were identified by Marcos Reyes and by the priest’s sister, Felicidad L. Yumul, who testified to distinguishing features including three upper-right gold molars and stature.
The Court of First Inst...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is Bungay’s prosecution and conviction barred by the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, given a prior conviction for rebellion coupled with other offenses?
- Was the corpus delicti of murder established in this case?
- Were the facts and evidence sufficient to convict Bungay beyond reasonable doubt for the kidnapping and...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)