GR 101117; (June, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101117 June 15, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCELINO CEDON, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
An Information was filed charging Marcelino Cedon and others with kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on December 17, 1986, armed men, including accused-appellant Marcelino Cedon, kidnapped Felimon Gerona, Sr. from his house in Sitio Bito-on, Barangay Bulo-an, Sierra Island, Catbalogan, Samar. Gerona was taken to Aripuyok Island, accused of being an intelligence agent, and forced to agree to pay a ransom of P5,000.00 for his release. He was returned to Barangay Bulo-an, and his wife delivered the ransom money the next day. Gerona reported the incident months later. The Regional Trial Court convicted Cedon and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Cedon appealed, asserting his innocence and claiming he was forced at gunpoint by Teofilo Bulan to go to Barangay Bulo-an to gather bamboo and was not a participant in the kidnapping.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Marcelino Cedon conspired in the kidnapping for ransom of Felimon Gerona, Sr.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the trial court and ACQUITTED Marcelino Cedon. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove Cedon’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence did not establish that Cedon was a conspirator in the crime. Testimonies of prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and insufficient. Felimon Gerona, Sr. stated that Cedon was merely standing near the beach and was left behind to guard the house when Gerona was taken to the island. Prosecution witness Pedro Comeque’s testimony was based on hearsay and contradicted by Gerona on material points. Another witness, Rudito Basilan, testified that Cedon was also forced by Bulan and was left behind with others when the victim was taken. The Court ruled that mere presence at the scene of the crime does not imply conspiracy, and no overt act was proven showing Cedon actively participated with a view to furthering the criminal design. The conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, which in this case was lacking.