GR L 18308; (April, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18308 April 30, 1966
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUIS TARUC, ET AL., defendants, CENON BUNGAY alias CENON BUNGUE alias RUFING, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
An information was filed charging Cenon Bungay, Luis Taruc, Jose Mutuc, and Gonzalo Labo, conspiring with others, with the murder of Father Teofilo Limlingan. The case against Taruc and Labo was dismissed, and Mutuc remained at large, so the trial proceeded only against Bungay. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of July 10, 1946, Bungay, along with other HMB members, agreed to a plan to kidnap and kill Father Limlingan based on an allegation that he had abused women. The group went to the priest’s convent under the pretext of a marriage ceremony. They took him, with his hands tied, to an isolated fishpond where he was shot by Jose Mutuc. His body was dumped into the fishpond. In March 1947, skeletal remains, along with a belt and buckle identified as belonging to Father Limlingan, were discovered in that fishpond. Bungay was convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
1. Whether the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti.
2. Whether the evidence is sufficient to convict Bungay beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether Bungay’s conviction places him in double jeopardy due to a prior conviction for rebellion coupled with multiple murder, arson, and robbery.
RULING
1. The prosecution established the corpus delicti. The Court clarified that corpus delicti refers to the fact that a crime was committed, not merely the body of the victim. The crime was proven by the positive testimony of three eyewitnesses to the kidnapping and murder. Furthermore, the skeletal remains found were identified as those of Father Limlingan through testimony about his physical characteristics and belongings.
2. The evidence is sufficient for conviction. The guilty participation of Bungay in the kidnapping (which was for the purpose of murder) was fully established by the credible and consistent testimonies of three eyewitnesses: Francisco Diaz, Justo Ortiz, and Troadio Nocum. The defense failed to show any ill motive for these witnesses to falsely testify.
3. The defense of double jeopardy is untenable. The murder of Father Limlingan was not among the murders included in the prior rebellion case for which Bungay was convicted. Furthermore, the motive for this murder (personal vengeance for alleged abuse of women) was distinct from the political motives typically associated with rebellion. Therefore, he was not being tried for the same offense. The appealed decision was affirmed.