G.R. No. L-16832 November 18, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. COMMANDER JOSE ALCANTARA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On April 21, 1954, Chinese merchant Wee King was kidnapped from his house in Catanauan, Quezon, by armed men dressed in Army uniforms and held for thirty days in the mountains of Bondoc Peninsula until his wife paid a ransom of P30,000.00. Accused-appellants Lucio Mañosca (the vice-mayor) and Mariano Ramos (a teniente concejal) were charged with kidnapping for ransom. The prosecution evidence established that prior to the kidnapping, Huk Commander Jose Alcantara, head of a kidnap unit, summoned Mañosca and Ramos to a conference. At this meeting, Alcantara asked Mañosca to identify the wealthiest person in town, and Mañosca named Wee King. Alcantara decided to kidnap Wee King and promised Mañosca a share of the ransom. Both appellants acted as lookouts during the kidnapping. After the kidnapping, Mañosca acted as a negotiator, helping to reduce the ransom demand from P200,000.00 to P30,000.00, and accompanied Mrs. Wee King to deliver the ransom. Alcantara later divided the ransom and sent a share to Mañosca. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of former Huk members Mariano Ricaro and Mateo Molines, and on the extrajudicial confessions (Exhibits A and B) of appellants Ramos and Mañosca, respectively. The appellants contested the admissibility of their confessions, claiming they were obtained through torture, and challenged the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

ISSUE

1. Whether the extrajudicial confessions (Exhibits A and B) were freely and voluntarily given by the accused.
2. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witnesses, Mariano Ricaro and Mateo Molines.
3. Whether the accused Lucio Mañosca conspired with the kidnappers.

RULING

1. On the confessions: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the confessions were voluntary. The appellants’ claims of torture and maltreatment were uncorroborated. Medical examinations ordered by the defense counsel revealed no traces of maltreatment. Furthermore, the appellants did not complain of torture when they ratified their confessions before Fiscal Pedro Revilla. The court found the circumstances surrounding the confessions, including Ramos’s initial willingness to confess upon assurance of his family’s safety and Mañosca’s confession after hearing Ramos’s taped statement, supported their voluntariness.
2. On the witnesses’ credibility: The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. While Ricaro and Molines were participants in the crime, their testimony was not wholly unreliable. The trial judge, who observed them testify, was in the best position to gauge their truthfulness. Their testimony was also corroborated by the appellants’ own confessions on essential points.
3. On conspiracy: The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of conspiracy. The evidence showed Mañosca’s active participation: he identified the victim, agreed to a share of the ransom, acted as a lookout, and later negotiated the ransom payment. His prior involvement in negotiating for another kidnap victim’s release and the fact that the Huk guards told Wee King that Mañosca could facilitate his release further indicated pre-existing conspiracy. The appellants’ alibis were rejected as weak and unconvincing.
The appealed decision was affirmed. The penalty for Mañosca was reclusion perpetua, considering his age (over 70 at the time of decision, which prohibits the death penalty). Ramos, as an accomplice, was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor to 20 years of reclusion temporal. The Court recommended executive clemency for Mañosca due to his prolonged detention and advanced age.