People vs. Silongan [G.R. No. 137182. April 24, 2003.

]
Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-(appellants): (Abdila Silongan, Macapagal Silongan, Akmad Awal, Teddy Silongan, Rolly
Lamalan, Sacaria Alon, Jumbrah Manap, Ramon Pasawilan), Mayangkang Saguile, Hadji Kutang Omar,
Basco Silongan, Monga Alon, Oteng Silongan, Beddo Laxamana, and 54 OTHERS KNOWN ONLY BY THEIR
ALIASES, AND OTHER JOHN DOES

Facts:

This is an automatic review of the decision of the RTC convicting appellants for the crime of Kidnapping
for Ransom with Serious Illegal Detention and sentencing them to death. The facts established by the
prosecution are as follows:

 On March 16, 1996, businessman Alexander Saldaña went to Bgy. Laguilayan, Isulan, Sultan
Kudarat with three other men to meet a certain Macapagal Silongan alias Commander Lambada
to talk about the gold nuggets that purportedly being sold by the latter. They arrived in the
morning but the business transaction was postponed and continued in the afternoon due to the
death of Macapagal’s relative and that he has to pick his brother in Cotabato City.
 Alexander’s group and Macapagal together with two other men went to Cotabato to fetch
Macapagal’s brother and waited until dark allegedly because the funeral arrangements for the
latter’s relative were not yet finished. On their way back, Macapagal ordered the driver to drive
slowly. At 7:30pm as they headed the highway, Alexander noticed Macapagal was busy talking
over his hand-held radio with someone in Maguindanaoan dialect which the former did not
understand.
 At around 8:30 PM, as they neared the highway, Macapagal ordered the driver to stop.
Suddenly, 15 armed men appeared. Alexander and his three companions were ordered to go
out of the vehicle, they were tied up, and blindfolded. Macapagal and Teddy were also tied and
blindfolded, but nothing more was done to them. Alexander identified all the abductors
including the brothers of Macapagal.
 The four victims were taken to the mountain hideout in Maguindanao where they met three of
the other accused. The kidnappers demanded P15M for Alexander’s release, but was reduced to
P12M. They made Alexander write a letter to his wife for his ransom. The letter was hand-
carried by 1 of the accused and two other victims who later managed to escape. No ransom was
obtained even after sending other persons and Americo Rejuso, Jr., one of the victims.
 Seven days later, Alexander and Americo were transferred to the town proper of Maganoy.
When the kidnappers learned that the military was looking for Alexander, they returned to the
mountain hideout and then later transferred from one place to another until Alexander was
brought to Talayan where he met Matangkang Saguile and later he was brought to
Mayangkang’s lair. He was made to write more letters to his family. Several times Mayangkang
himself would write the letters to Alexander’s wife. Alexander was kept there for 5 months
constantly guarded by armed men including Macapagal, Abdila and Basco (all Silongan) and
Akmad Awal.
 On Sept. 24, 1996 Mayangkang released Alexander to the military in exchange for a relative who
was caught delivering a ransom note to Alexander’s family. Only 8 of the accused were brought
 to trial (see names in BOLD above). They were convicted except for Teddy Silongan. (see note 1)

Issue: (For discussion) Whether actual payment of ransom is necessary in the crime of Kidnapping.

Held: No, it is necessary that there is actual payment of ransom in the crime of Kidnapping. For the
crime to be committed, at least one overt act of demanding ransom must be made. It is not necessary
that there be actual payment of ransom because what the law requires is merely the existence of the
purpose of demanding ransom. In this case, the records are replete with instances when the kidnappers
demanded ransom from the victim. At the mountain hideout where Alexander was first taken, he was
made a letter to his wife asking her to pay ransom of twelve million. Also Mayangkang himself wrote
more letters to his family threatened the family to kill Alexander if the ransom was not paid. The
decision of the RTC is affirmed.

Actual Issue: Whether the guilt of the appellants has been proven by credible evidence beyond
reasonable doubt. – YES!

Appellants contend that the 2 victims could not have identified the appellants as their abductors because
it happened at night in a place without electricity and both of them were hogtied and blindfolded at the
time. Also they point to inconsistencies in the victims’ testimonies. –

 The records show that the 2 had a number of opportunities to see the faces of the appellants as
they were transferred from one lair to another without blindfolds and often in broad daylight.
Also, Alexander was detained for 6 months during which he saw them, ate with them and
actually lived with them. The apellants made little or no attempt to conceal their identities as
they even told Alexander their names when he asked them. Moreover, the testimonies of the 2
victims are consistent in all material aspects with precise details of the crime and specific
involvements of the different accused.
 Denial, like alibi, is an insipid and weak defense, being easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove.
A positive identification of the accused, when categorical, consistent and straightforward, and
without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter,
prevails over this defense.

NOTES:

1 – Teddy Silongan testified that his cousin Macapagal contacted him to act as interpreter for the latter
because Alexander could not speak Maguindanaon and Macapagal does not understand any other
language. He added that after the van stopped, one opened its rear door and someone hit him with the
butt of a gun rendering him unconscious and later found himself hogtied like Macapagal but could not
find Alexander’s group or the van.

2 – Other topics covered by the case:

a) Appellants argue the fact that they are rebel surrenderees precludes conviction for the common
crime of kidnapping because common crimes are absorbed in rebellion (citing People v.
Hernandez) – Merely because it is alleged that appellants were members of the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front or of the Moro National Liberation Front does not necessarily mean that the
 crime of kidnapping was committed in furtherance of a rebellion. Evidence must be proved that
the crime committed was politically motivated.
b) Apellants assert that some of them are illiterate and are entitled to mitigated liability – Art. 63
of the RPC states "(i)n all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be
applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed." Hence, the penalty cannot be mitigated in this case.
c) All eight accused except Akmad Awal, admitted signing separate extra-judicial confessions but
asserted they did not understand what they were signing and that they did not know or hire the
lawyer who appears to have assisted them in making their confessions. – At the outset, we hold
that the trial court correctly ruled that the extrajudicial statements of the appellants are
inadmissible in evidence. The assistance afforded by Atty. Plaridel Bohol is not the assistance
contemplated by the fundamental law.

People of the Philippines versus Diño (No. 924-R, February 18, 1948, 45 O.G. 3446.)

Facts

On June 20, 1946, Roberto Diño was hired as a driver of the US army at a stationin Quezon City. At
above 11:30 in the morning, he brought a truck load of articlesto manila harbor; the article came from
the US army. At the check point a guardapproached the truck and found three boxes, containing ten
caliber 30 army rifles. The guard brought Diño to the lieutenant of the US army for questioning,
Diño pointed to the gang but later denied. Later Diño confessed that there were four persons who
placed the boxes on board and he was instructed to bring them out of the area. While they were to
meet after the truck passed the checkpoint.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime of theft was consummated considering theforegoing.

Ruling:

Trial Court: Diño was found guilty as an accomplice in the consummatedcrime of theft.Supreme Court:
Diño was found guilty as a principal in the frustrated crime of theft.

Reason: in order for the crime of theft to be consummated the article should have passed
the checkpoint, so that the thief could have full control and could dispenseof the property.