GR 32529; (May, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32529 May 12, 1978
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TY SUI WONG, VICTOR NG alias “TY SING LING”, ROQUE DEJUNGCO alias “GERRY”, JOSE DE LOS SANTOS alias “PEPENG KOMANG”, ROMUALDO CARREON alias “OMENG”, JUANITO ANG y DEJUNGCO, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, defendants. VICTOR NG alias “TY SING LING” and JOSE DE LOS SANTOS alias “PEPENG KOMANG”, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The case involves the kidnapping and subsequent murder of Mariano Lim on December 21, 1966, in Quezon City. The prosecution established that appellants Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos, along with other co-accused, conspired to carry out the crime. The group, acting on the inducement of a promised reward, forcibly abducted Lim from his residence. He was then taken to a remote location where he was stabbed to death. The trial court convicted the accused of Murder, qualified by the circumstance of reward or promise. Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos appealed the decision.
The trial court found Victor Ng to be the mastermind who planned the crime and promised a reward for its execution. Jose de los Santos was identified as one of the direct perpetrators who physically carried out the stabbing. Other co-accused were convicted as principals and accomplices, with some withdrawing their appeals. The trial court sentenced Jose de los Santos to reclusion perpetua and Victor Ng to an indeterminate penalty.
ISSUE
The central issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos for Murder, and whether the qualifying circumstance of reward was properly appreciated.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the legal characterization for Victor Ng. The Court upheld the finding that the killing was Murder, qualified by reward or promise under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The evidence, including witness testimonies and corroborating statements, conclusively established the conspiracy among the accused to kidnap and kill the victim for a monetary reward.
The Court clarified the individual criminal liability. For Jose de los Santos, his direct participation in the stabbing made him a principal by direct participation. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed as proper. For Victor Ng, the Court agreed he was the inducer who conceived the plan and promised a reward, but held he should be classified as a principal by inducement, not a co-principal by direct participation. However, since the penalty for principals by inducement is the same as for direct principals under Article 17 of the RPC, his liability remains that of a principal. The Court found the trial court correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstances in his favor, justifying the lower indeterminate penalty imposed on him. The circumstance of evident premeditation was correctly deemed absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of reward. The judgment was affirmed with modification only as to the specific classification of Victor Ng’s participation.