People vs. Taruc

Information, Co-Accused, and Case Disposition in the Trial Court

The information filed in the court below charged appellant Cenon Bungay alias Cenon Bungue alias Rufing together with Luis Taruc alias Kas. Ipe, Jose Mutuc alias Fred, and Gonzalo Labo alias De Lara with murder committed as narrated in the information: kidnapping of Father Limlingan from the convent, deliberate intent to kill, movement of the victim to an isolated place, tying of his hands, and execution of the killing by shooting using firearms.

The trial court dismissed the case against Luis Taruc on the ground of lack of sufficient evidence, and dismissed as to Gonzalo Labo because he had been killed previously in an encounter with military authorities. As Jose Mutuc was still at large at the time of trial, the prosecution proceeded only against appellant, who pleaded not guilty.

After the trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant, he appealed.

Factual Background: Kidnapping, Killing, and Discovery of the Remains

At about 10:00 to 11:00 o’clock in the evening of 10 July 1946, appellant went to see Francisco Diaz, a resident of sitio Dungan, Balucuc, Apalit, Pampanga, and a member of the HMB (Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan) organization. Diaz and appellant traveled to sitio Caingin of the same barrio and joined a group composed of Pedro Macapagal alias Roque, Miguel Simbulan, Felipe de la Cruz, Gonzalo Labo, and one alias Maning.

The group allegedly told Diaz and appellant that Father Teofilo Limlingan should be kidnapped and killed because he had abused two women. According to the prosecution narrative, all present agreed to the plan except Diaz and Justo Ortiz, who objected. When Simbulan threatened to “liquidate” them, Diaz and Ortiz were silenced and did not prevent the ensuing acts.

Appellant and Simbulan then led the group to the convent of the chapel of barrio Balucuc to fetch the priest. When the convent door opened, Simbulan, appellant, and another member called the priest, telling him that there was a couple who eloped and wanted to be married. Once the door was opened and the trio went upstairs, Simbulan later came down carrying the priest’s two long robes (hibitos). Simbulan then ordered Diaz and Ortiz to dispose of the robes in Baliwag, Bulacan, so as to avoid suspicion for the killing.

Appellant and another member later came down with Father Limlingan, whose hands were tied behind his body. They brought him to a fishpond in the same barrio, where the priest was shot by Jose Mutuc. After the killing, the body was dumped into the fishpond and covered with water lilies.

When the priest’s disappearance was reported, Lt. Belvis with PC soldiers and the municipal mayor of Apalit, Dr. Emilio Pascual, searched the fishpond for the remains but failed to find them because the fishpond was filled with water. They then asked the fishpond owner, Marcos Reyes, to report if he found the remains.

In March 1947, while Reyes and companions were emptying the fishpond, a boy reported finding bones. Reyes and the companions found a skeleton still intact, including the belt and buckle and the rope still tying the hands behind the body. They reported the discovery to the barrio lieutenant, who rushed to the location. A Jose Bondoc volunteered to pick up the remains and placed them inside the box left by Mayor Emilio Pascual in Reyes’s possession. The remains and the belt and buckle were identified by Reyes and Felicidad L. Yumul, a sister of Father Limlingan, as belonging to the priest.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Appellant raised three principal arguments: first, that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti because the body had allegedly not been actually found; second, that the evidence was insufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt; and third, that he should have been acquitted on the ground of double jeopardy, citing a prior conviction for rebellion coupled with multiple murder, arson and robbery.

Appellant’s First Contention: Alleged Failure to Prove Corpus Delicti

The Court addressed appellant’s claim that corpus delicti had not been established since the priest’s body was not allegedly found. The Court treated appellant’s argument as meaning that no actual cadaver had been recovered.

The Court held that corpus delicti refers to the fact of the crime, meaning that a crime was actually perpetrated. It does not refer to the body of the murdered person or the object robbed or stolen. The Court found that the commission of the crime charged was “clearly established” by the positive testimony of not less than three witnesses present when the murder was committed. The Court further found that the evidence also supported the identification of the remains: the Court relied on the testimony of Felicidad L. Yumul that the skeleton found in the fishpond was that of her brother, based on physical characteristics and personal belongings, including her account that the priest was tall, that he had three upper right gold molars, and that he wore a belt with a buckle bearing the initials T. G. L., which the Court found to match the buckle discovered with the remains.

Appellant’s Second Contention: Alleged Insufficiency of Evidence

Appellant next argued that the record evidence was insufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the contention, finding that appellant’s guilty participation in the kidnapping of Father Limlingan, carried out for the purpose of murdering him, was fully established by the testimonies of three eye-witnesses: Francisco Diaz, Justo Ortiz, and Troadio Nocum. The Court stated that it had examined the record for any circumstance sufficient to discredit their testimony and found none.

The Court noted that Diaz and Ortiz had formed part of the group that kidnapped Father Limlingan but were not charged in the information filed in the lower court. The Court explained this was evidently due to their objection when the plan was announced and their subsequent failure to help accomplish the crime once they objected. It was therefore the Court’s view that their testimony was truthful in revealing appellant’s guilty participation.

The Court also found no defense evidence that showed any ill motive on the part of these witnesses sufficiently serious to induce them to falsely testify against appellant.

Appellant’s Third Contention: Double Jeopardy Based on Prior Conviction

Appellant further claimed that the lower court should have acquitted him because he had previously been convicted in connection with rebellion coupled with multiple murder, arson and robbery. The Court found the argument untenable.

The Court examined the information in the prior case for rebellion with murder and arson and compared it with the present information. It held that the murder subject of the present case was not one of the murders included in the prior case for which appellant had been sentenced to death. The Court thus treated the double jeopardy claim as failing due to the lack of identity in the offense previously charged and adjudicated.

The Court also characterized the motive underlying the murder in the present case: appellant and his companions believed, based on the facts testified to at trial, that Father Limlingan had abused some women under his religious influence. The Court described the acts as an assumption of authority beyond lawful powers, undertaken without trial, and followed by the execution of the group’s asserted judgment. The Court therefore held that appellant could not invoke double jeopardy.

Ruling of the Court and Disposition

The Court affirmed the appealed decision. It held that the judgment of conviction was in accordance with l