G.R. No. 158364 - National Housing Authority vs. Pascual

Case Summary (G.R. No. 158364)

Procedural Antecedents and Conviction in the Trial Court

The City Fiscal of Basilan City filed an amended information charging the accused and several others, including Moros Asmad, Kohotan alias Arip Alian, Angih alias Ayub Alian, Amil alias Iburahim Hambali, Baddih alias Rajah Abduraman, Ajah alias Hajim Alian, Andah alias Ajing Akdam, Alih Itum alias Sayari Atib Akot, Jamas Jumaidi y Andas, and Oyong Asidin, with kidnapping with robbery in band and murder, with Agapito de la Cruz alleged to be the principal by inducement. Only Agapito, Jamas Jumaidi, and Oyong Asidin were apprehended; the rest remained at large. On September 24, 1968, the City Fiscal moved for the discharge of the two apprehended co-accused as state witnesses, and the trial court granted the motion.

Prosecution Evidence: Testimony of State Witnesses and Supporting Witness

The prosecution relied mainly on the testimonies of the two discharged state witnesses, Jamas Jumaidi and Oyong Asidin, and on Mohamad Sagap Salip. Mohamad Sagap Salip testified that around October 1967, the accused met with him, Alih Itum, and a certain Asmad, and proposed the killing of Antonio Yu and the kidnapping of Yu Chi Chong for ransom. He stated that Asmad contacted people in Jolo, Sulu, with the accused among those involved. The state witnesses then narrated the operational plan.

Jamas Jumaidi and Oyong Asidin testified that on March 5, 1968, the group sailed to Basilan City on an outboard watercraft, landing at Look Sapi. After meeting Mohamad Sagap Salip and Alih Itum, the group moved toward Bangcao Sapa and then proceeded on foot to the accused’s house in Lantawan, reaching it at about three o’clock in the morning. They stated that the accused met them, fed them, and informed them that the two Chinese brothers would go to Lantawan on March 6, 1968, and that the group was to kill Antonio Yu, kidnap Yu Chi Chong, and demand P50,000.00 as ransom. They further said that P20,000.00 would go to the accused, while P30,000.00 would be divided among the members. They related that after instructions, the accused led them toward the ambush at about five o’clock in the morning. They testified that while Sagap Salip was sent home, the accused proceeded to the camp of Antonio Yu.

The state witnesses’ narration continued to the kidnapping. They stated that Baddih was instructed to go to Antonio Yu’s copra kiln and hitch a ride in the truck of Yu Chi Chong. Antonio Yu and Yu Chi Chong were preparing to leave Isabela to their Lantawan plantation to take delivery of newly made copra, but departure was delayed due to engine trouble. When the truck reached Lantawan, they said the loading of copra sacks was to be delivered back to Isabela, and Antonio Yu later left for Tairan, instructing his brother to handle the copra cargo. They testified that around one o’clock in the afternoon, Baddih dropped his towel, requested the truck driver Yu Chi Chong to stop, and then the ambushers dragged Yu Chi Chong and Isabelo Mancenido from the truck. They stated that the attackers shot at the tires with carbine and garand rifles and then took their quarry. Mancenido was later released after he pleaded for mercy.

They further testified that Yu Chi Chong was led through the forest with his hands tied in front. They passed through a house where they asked for water and then reached Bangcao Sapa, where low tide prevented them from reaching their boat. During this waiting period, the victim attempted to escape by striking Angih with a piece of wood and trying to grab Angih’s gun. They related that Angih fired multiple times, killing Yu Chi Chong. According to the witnesses, gunshots were heard by two Muslim villagers, Hajijul Salip Alam and Asadama Dansalan, who later returned with other villagers to view the body. After villagers left and returned the next day, the body was no longer there. The armed group allegedly recovered the body, went to Jolo, and dumped it into the middle of the sea. The body was never recovered.

Evidence of Identification and the Alleged Motive

Hajijul Salip Alam and Asadama Dansalan testified consistently that during the night of March 6, 1968, they heard gunshots while walking toward Bangcao Sapa to go fishing. They saw a dead man and later identified him as Yu Chi Chong by reference to Exhibit “A”, the photograph of Yu Chi Chong. Antonio Yu testified to the accused’s possible motive. He explained that he had hired Agapito as overseer in 1957, that in 1964 management shifted to Agapito when Antonio Yu moved to Zamboanga, and that in 1967 Antonio Yu returned and resumed management. He stated that production increased under Agapito, but that some cows were missing. He responded by becoming strict, practically stripping Agapito of authority.

Defense Evidence: Denial, Alibi, and Allegations of Witness Corruption

The accused denied the participation attributed to him. He asserted that on March 5, 1968, he reported for work as usual in Antonio Yu’s land and ate dinner and slept at the house of Alfonso Flores. He claimed he did not leave the house after eating his supper at around seven-thirty in the evening, until about six o’clock in the morning when he woke up. He said that after breakfast he went to the copra kiln to supervise hauling coconuts, and that at around noontime he and Antonio Yu had lunch in Alfonso Flores’s house before Antonio Yu left for Tairan. He testified that between twelve-thirty and one o’clock in the afternoon, he heard gunshots, then he sought his carbine. Upon learning from laborers that the truck carrying copra had been fired upon, he went to the truck, searched for Yu Chi Chong, and was informed by Isabelo Mancenido that Yu Chi Chong had been taken by bandits, although Mancenido himself was released. He later stopped working on the plantation on October 25, 1968 to engage in politics.

He also claimed that Oyong Asidin, Jamas Jumaidi, and other witnesses had been paid by Antonio Yu. He asserted he had seen some witnesses being paid. He further maintained he did not know the other co-accused, except Alih Itum Asmad.

Trial Court’s Findings and the Imposed Sentence

After trial, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision on June 25, 1969 finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping and serious illegal detention defined in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 18 and 1084). It appreciated aggravating circumstances including abuse of confidence, commission in an uninhabited place, and abuse of superior strength. It found that the kidnapping was committed with the aid of an outlaw band armed with unlicensed carbine and garand rifles to ensure impunity, and it found no mitigating circumstance. It sentenced the accused to death and ordered indemnification of the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00.

Issues Raised on Appeal and the Accused’s Arguments

On appeal, the accused contended that: first, the trial court erred in discarding what he characterized as false testimony of discharged witnesses Jamas Jumaidi and Oyong Asidin by applying falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; second, the trial court erred in giving credence to Mohamad Sagap Salip; third, it erred in finding him guilty as mastermind or principal by inducement in the absence of conspiracy; and fourth, it erred in not accepting his defense of alibi.

The Court’s Treatment of Credibility: Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

The Court held that the asserted contradiction in Jamas Jumaidi’s account was not accurately understood. It noted that Jamas Jumaidi had executed two affidavits before the NBI. In the first, dated July 8, 1968, he stated he did not know what happened to the Chinese victim, and that only when they were back in Jolo did other companions inform him that they had killed the Chinese. In the second affidavit, dated July 22, 1968, he stated that while waiting for the tide to rise, Angih shot the Chinese and the body was dumped into the sea on the way to Jolo. The trial court and the Court regarded his testimony as consistent on material aspects of the kidnapping plot, including the role of Agapito, the ransom amount, and the distribution of spoils. The Court also observed that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus was not mandatory and had limitations. It applied particularly when there was a conscious and deliberate intention to falsify, and it did not apply where inconsistencies were tied to self-exculpation or were not conclusive of deliberate perversion. It further noted that there was corroboration on substantial points, including independent proof of the victim’s death through empty shells, bloodstains, and positive identification of the victim by Hajijul Salip Alam and Asadama Dansalan.

As to Oyong Asidin, the Court likewise recognized the witness’s having executed two affidavits of the same general nature, with the second providing a full narrative. It found that both affidavits, although varying on the extent of initial disclosure, consistently pointed to Agapito as the mastermind in whose house the criminal scheme was hatched and plotted. The Court therefore found no reversible error in the trial court’s appreciation of the credibility of the state witnesses.

Corroboration of Mohamad Sagap Salip and Deference to Trial Court Findings

The Court rejected the argument that Sagap Salip’s testimony should be discredited. It noted the trial court’s finding that his testimony was unassailed and deemed sufficient to support the accusation by itself. More importantly, it found that the state witnesses corroborated Sagap Salip on substantial points, including the details of strategy and execution. The Court reiterated that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility carried great weight and respect, absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present.

Principal by Inducement: Determining Cause and Positive Resolution to Procure the Crime

The Court also rejected the accused’s position that his liability as

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 158364)

The case arose from an automatic review of a Criminal Case No. 1993 decided by the Court of First Instance of Basilan City.
The Court of First Instance of Basilan City found Agapito de la Cruz guilty as principal by inducement of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and imposed the death penalty.
The People of the Philippines prosecuted the case against Agapito de la Cruz as Accused-Appellant, with other co-accused included in the Amended Information.
The Supreme Court resolved the appeal and corrected the proper legal classification of the crime charged and proven.
The Supreme Court treated the case under the 1987 Constitution, the decision being in 1980? (Noted rule: as the decision is 1980, the applicable Constitution is the one then in force, but the syllabus only reflects doctrine and disposition stated in the text provided.)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines acted as Plaintiff-Appellee.
Agapito de la Cruz acted as Accused-Appellant.
The City Fiscal of Basilan City filed an Amended Information charging the group with kidnapping with robbery in band and murder.
Only Agapito de la Cruz, Jamas Jumaidi, and Oyong Asidin were apprehended among the eleven persons named.
The prosecution moved to discharge Jamas Jumaidi and Oyong Asidin as state witnesses, and the trial court granted the motion on September 24, 1968.
The prosecution relied mainly on the testimonies of the discharged witnesses and on the testimony of Mohamad Sagap Salip.
The trial court rendered its judgment on June 25, 1969, convicting Agapito de la Cruz of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sentencing him to death.
On appeal, the accused raised four assigned errors focused on witness credibility, conspiracy, and alibi.
The Supreme Court ultimately modified the crime classification and changed the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to the failure to meet the vote requirement for capital punishment.

Key Factual Allegations

The Amended Information alleged that on or about March 6, 1968, at Lantawan, Isabela, City of Basilan, the accused and co-accused, as principal by inducement and co-principals, kidnapped and extorted ransom from Yu Chi Chong.
The Information alleged that the accused and co-accused used carbine and garand rifles, acted as private persons, and sought to extort P50,000.00 as consideration for the release.
The Information further alleged that while the victim was already in the custody of the accused and taking advantage of superior force, the group took a wrist watch (Rado) and cash money belonging to the victim.
The Information alleged that the group later assaulted, attacked, and shot Yu Chi Chong with treachery and evident premeditation, causing his death, and then dumped the body into the sea.
The trial evidence established that Yu Chi Chong was the younger brother of Antonio Yu, whose landholdings were in Lantawan, Isabela, Basilan City.
The evidence also established that Agapito de la Cruz served as an overseer for Antonio Yu for about ten years, and that his relationship with the family and farm management became tense.
Mohamad Sagap Salip testified that around October 1967, the accused proposed killing Antonio Yu and kidnapping Yu Chi Chong for ransom.
The discharged witnesses testified that the group traveled to Basilan, reached the ambush site, and that Agapito instructed the plan on when the victims would arrive and where the ambush would occur.
The group kidnapped Yu Chi Chong and Isabelo Mancenido by dragging them from the truck after a dropped towel signal and stopped the truck by force.
The group shot at the vehicle’s tires with assorted firearms, marched the victim through the forest toward Bangcao Sapa, and waited while the tide was low.
During the wait, the victim attempted escape by striking Angih with a wood and trying to grab the gun, and Angih fired, killing Yu Chi Chong.
The witnesses testified that after the killing, the group took the body to the sea and dumped it, and the body was never recovered.
Two Muslim villagers, Hajijul Salip Alam and Asadama Dansalan, testified that they heard gunshots, saw a dead body later identified as Yu Chi Chong from Exhibit "A", and reported the incident.

Prosecution Evidence and Witness Credibility

The prosecution case relied heavily on state witnesses: Jamas Jumaidi and Oyong Asidin, who had been discharged to testify for the State.
The prosecution also presented the testimony of Mohamad Sagap Salip, who linked Agapito to the plan by describing the accused’s proposal to kill and kidnap for ransom.
Jamas Jumaidi executed two affidavits before the NBI, and his trial testimony was alleged by the accused to be inconsistent with his earlier statements.
The Supreme Court held that the first affidavit negated knowledge of what happened to the victim, but the second affidavit later narrated the killing while waiting for the tide to rise and the dumping of the body.
The Court found that the contradictions pertained mainly to the declarant’s own involvement rather than the crucial role of Agapito in the plot.
The Supreme Court held that both affidavits remained consistent on the critical matters: Agapito’s mastermind role, the ransom plan, the operational details, and the distribution of spoils.
As to Oyong Asidin, the Court held that he too executed two affidavits of similar tenor with an initial negation of knowledge followed by a full narrative.
The Supreme Court held that although the accused attacked the state witnesses under falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the rule was not mandatory and required specific conditions.
The Court articulated that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus allows, but does not compel, rejection of testimony.
The Court ruled that the rule does not apply where the declarants were motivated by a desire to exculpate themselves rather than deliberately pervert the truth.
The Court ruled that the mistaken statements were not conclusively indicative of conscious falsification.
The Court also noted corroborative proof: physical indications such as empty shells and bloodstains, and positive identification by the villagers through Exhibit "A".
On the credibility of Sagap Salip, the Court held that his testimony was unassailed in a manner that negated its probative force.
The Court further held that the discharged witnesses corroborated Sagap Salip on substantial points.

Defense Theory and Alibi

The accused defended himself by claiming that he reported for work on March 5, 1968, and that he remained at the house of Alfonso Flores from about 7:30 p.m. until about 6:00 a.m. the next day.
The accused claimed he did not leave the Flores house during that period and that he only worked in the plantation after waking up the next morning.
The accused asserted that he heard shots between 12:30 p.m. and 1:00 p.m., became apprehensive, and then searched for the victim after hearing that the truck had been fired upon.
The accused also claimed that he was told by Isabelo Mancenido that the victim had been taken by bandits and that Mancenido was released.
The accused alleged that prosecution witnesses were paid by Antonio Yu, and he claimed to have personally seen witnesses being paid.
The accused maintained that he did not know most of the co-accuse