Case Summary (G.R. No. 240130)
Factual Background
On May 27, 1984, Anatalio Moronia was last seen in barangay Amguhan with his hands tied behind his back and being escorted by eight armed men including accused Abundio Roluna. After that date Moronia was never seen or heard from. An Information dated June 26, 1990 charged eight persons with Kidnapping with Murder; only Roluna was apprehended and tried.
Witness Testimony (People’s Evidence)
Conrado Sombilon testified that at about 7:00 a.m. he observed Moronia stopped and taken captive by Roluna, who was accompanied by seven others; Roluna carried an armalite and Carlos Daguing tied Moronia’s hands with an abaca strip. Sombilon did not shout and later, apart from informing his wife, did not notify others. Buenaventura Nogalada corroborated in substance: at about 9:00 a.m. he saw Moronia walking with hands tied, followed by Roluna, Carlos Daguing and five unidentified persons; Roluna had an armalite and Carlos a pistol. Nogalada left the scene immediately and did not hear any shots fired. Both witnesses testified that Moronia was never again seen or heard from.
Defense: Denial and Alibi
Accused Roluna pleaded denial and offered an alibi. He testified that on May 24, 1984 he and his wife immediately attended to his wife’s bedridden grandmother, Iluminada Cortines, who was seriously ill; he claimed to have remained and tended to her for three weeks. His wife Teresita Roluna and Iluminada Cortines corroborated this account. Roluna also alleged that the prosecution witnesses harbored ill will against him and testified falsely due to prior personal disputes.
Trial Court Disposition
The trial court found Roluna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder. Applying Article 48 on complex crimes and noting the 1987 Constitution’s prohibition on the death penalty, the trial court sentenced Roluna to reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) and ordered indemnity of P30,000 to the heirs of Moronia, with credit for detention under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
Issues on Appeal
The appellate court framed the pivotal issues as: (a) whether the circumstances proved by the prosecution were sufficient to establish the death of Anatalio Moronia; and (b) if death is established, whether the evidence sufficed to hold accused-appellant responsible for that death (i.e., to sustain a conviction for Kidnapping with Murder).
Corpus Delicti and Legal Standard
The court reiterated the definition of corpus delicti as the compound fact consisting of (1) the existence of the act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge (e.g., death), and (2) the criminal agency as the cause of the act or result. Proof of both components is required to establish the charged offense.
Appellate Court’s Finding on Death
The appellate court held that the circumstances—Moronia last seen bound and escorted by eight armed men on May 27, 1984, and not seen or heard from for approximately six years—sufficiently raised a disputable presumption of death under Section 5(x)(3), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court (a person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years shall be presumed dead for all purposes). Thus, the element of death (the first component of corpus delicti) was sufficiently established by the evidence.
Appellate Court’s Analysis on Culpability and Distinction from Precedent
Despite finding a presumption of death, the court determined that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second component—criminal agency attributable to accused Roluna that caused Moronia’s death. The court distinguished this case from People v. Sasota where witnesses actually observed the accused physically assault and cause the victim’s death; in contrast, here eyewitnesses only saw Moronia being bound and led away, without any testimony that the accused or co-accused violently assaulted, shot, or otherwise killed Moronia. Nogalada specifically testified he heard no shots. The court noted also that no definitive motive linking Roluna to a killing was established. The court emphasized the criminal-law principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the disputable presumption of death under the Rules does not automatically translate into a presumption of responsibility against those who were last seen with the missing person.
Conviction Modified: Lesser Offense and Penalty
Because the elements and aggravating/mitigating circumstances required for Kidnapping with Murder (or kidnapping with serious illegal detention under Article 267) were not established, the appellate court concluded that the proven offense was slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code. The court found the generi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 240130)
Procedural Posture and Citation
- G.R. No. 101797; Decision promulgated March 24, 1994; reported at 301 Phil. 454; Second Division; decision authored by Justice Puno, J.
- Case originally docketed as Criminal Case No. B-1610 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Baybay, Leyte (Original Records, p. 114).
- Eight (8) persons were charged by Information dated June 26, 1990 with Kidnapping with Murder: Abundio Roluna, Carlos Daguing, Paterno Daguing, Mamerto Asmolo, Teodulfo Daguing, Federico Simpron, Bienvenido Simpron and Didoc Bongcalos.
- Only accused Abundio Roluna was arrested, tried and convicted; the other seven (7) accused remained at large.
- The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses at trial: Conrado Sombilon and Buenaventura Nogalada (TSN, December 20, 1990; TSN, January 3, 1991).
Criminal Information (Charge as Alleged)
- The Information alleged that “on or about the 27th day of May, 1984, in the municipality of Baybay, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with (sic) one another, with the use of firearms and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously hogtie and kidnap one Anatalio Moronia and take him away to a place unknown up (to) this time whereat said victim was killed. CONTRARY TO LAW.”
- The Information charged the complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder.
Facts as Offered by the Prosecution — Conrado Sombilon
- Testified that on May 27, 1984, at around seven o’clock in the morning, he was en route to sitio Bungabungan in barangay Amguhan to attend the pasture of his carabao (TSN, December 20, 1990, pp. 5–20).
- At a distance of thirty (30) meters he saw his neighbor, Anatalio Moronia, stopped and taken captive by accused Abundio Roluna.
- Roluna was accompanied by seven (7) other persons identified by Sombilon: Didoc Bongcalos, Federico Simpron, Bienvenido Simpron, Teodulfo Daguing, Carlos Daguing, Mamerto Asmolo and Paterno Daguing.
- Roluna was armed with an armalite; his companions carried short firearms.
- Sombilon observed Carlos Daguing tie up the hands of Moronia at the back using an abaca strip.
- Sombilon was frightened, did not shout for help and proceeded on his way; he informed no one about what he saw except his wife.
Facts as Offered by the Prosecution — Buenaventura Nogalada
- Testified that on May 27, 1984, at around nine o’clock in the morning, he was returning from his farm in barangay Monterico to barangay Amguhan (TSN, January 3, 1991, pp. 26–38).
- At about twenty-five (25) meters distance he saw Moronia walking along a human trail in barangay Amguhan with his hands tied by a rope behind his back.
- Moronia was followed by accused Roluna, Carlos Daguing and five (5) other persons whom Nogalada did not recognize.
- Accused Roluna carried an armalite while Carlos Daguing was armed with a pistol.
- Nogalada was frightened and immediately left the place.
- Nogalada testified he did not hear any shot fired by any of the eight (8) armed accused (TSN, January 3, 1991, p. 39).
Subsequent Events and Prosecution’s Position on Death
- From May 27, 1984 (the last time Moronia was seen) until the trial (a period of six years), Moronia was never seen or heard from.
- The People contended that the circumstances surrounding Moronia’s last appearance — tied and in the company of eight (8) armed men — established that he was in danger of death and invoked the disputable presumption of death under Section 5(x)(3), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court: “A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four (4) years.”
- The People argued that such circumstances raised a presumption that Moronia had been killed by accused-appellant and his companions.
Defense Offered by Accused Abundio Roluna
- Accused Roluna advanced the defenses of denial and alibi.
- He testified that on May 24, 1984 Danilo Norono (a cousin of his wife) informed them that Iluminada Cortines y Norono (his wife’s grandmother) was bedridden and seriously ill; he and his wife immediately proceeded to Iluminada’s house in barangay Banahaw, Baybay, Leyte.
- Roluna asserted he gathered herbal plants, boiled them and regularly applied them on Iluminada’s body; he and his wife attended to Iluminada for three (3) weeks and returned to their home in barangay Amguhan after Iluminada recuperated (TSN, January 3, 1991, pp. 59–62).
- His testimony was corroborated in substance by his wife, Teresita Roluna, and his grandmother-in-law, Iluminada Cortines de Norono (id., pp. 59–62).
- Roluna charged that prosecution witnesses Sombilon and Nogalada harbored ill-feelings against him and testified falsely: Sombilon alleged