G.R. Nos. 76340-41 July 28, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILFREDO SALA alias “Fred” and “Dodong,” SARAH JUDILLA, MARILOU MAGLASANG, MELQUIADES ACUSAR, EMILY GOMEZ alias “Norma Cortes,” EDWIN SALA and DANILO YTANG, accused, MARILOU MAGLASANG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In Criminal Case No. CBU-6028, accused-appellant Marilou Maglasang, along with Sarah Judilla and Wilfredo Sala, was charged with kidnapping for ransom of one-year-old Remton Zuasola. The prosecution evidence established that Maglasang and Judilla, under the pretense of selling goods, repeatedly visited the Zuasola residence to familiarize themselves with the household. On August 19, 1985, they returned with Sala, who falsely reported that the child’s father had been in an accident. Luring the child’s guardian, Emeteria Siega, to a hospital, they separated her from the baby, whom Sala then took to Toledo City. A ransom note demanding P50,000 was later delivered to the child’s father, Antonio Zuasola.
In Criminal Case No. CBU-6027, the same group was charged with attempted kidnapping for ransom of Roslyn Claire Paro-an, the daughter of Antonio Zuasola’s employer. On August 27, 1985, armed men, including discharged state witness Melquiades Acusar, forced Zuasola at gunpoint to lead them to the Paro-an residence to kidnap the girl, intending to exchange her for the ransom for Remton. The attempt was foiled by the timely arrival of PC and CIS elements.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether accused-appellant Marilou Maglasang’s guilt for the crimes of kidnapping for ransom and attempted kidnapping for ransom was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously applied the principles of conspiracy and circumstantial evidence. For the consummated kidnapping, the series of visits by Maglasang and Judilla to the victim’s home were not innocent but were deliberate acts of casing the premises to facilitate the kidnapping. Maglasang’s direct participation in the scheme to lure the guardian away from the child established her indispensable role in the conspiracy. Her actions, viewed in conjunction with those of her co-accused, formed an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the inescapable conclusion of her guilt.
Regarding the attempted kidnapping, the Court ruled that the overt acts—arming themselves, forcing Zuasola at gunpoint to guide them, and proceeding to the Paro-an residence—clearly manifested the commencement of the crime’s execution. The attempt was not voluntarily abandoned but was frustrated solely by the intervention of authorities. Maglasang’s defense of denial and alibi was rightly rejected for being weak and uncorroborated, especially against the positive identification by the state witness and the logical inferences from her established participation in the first kidnapping, which provided the motive for the second. The penalties imposed by the trial court were affirmed.