G.R. No. L-2025 April 28, 1951
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. RICARDO PARULAN, GLORIA CABALLERO y CRISANTO SANTOS, acusados-apelantes.

FACTS

The case involves an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Ricardo Parulan and Gloria Caballero were convicted as co-authors of the complex crime of kidnapping with murder and sentenced to death. Crisanto Santos was convicted as an accomplice and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, plus indemnity and costs. Mariano Natividad, Paulino Natividad, and Abelardo Desiderio were acquitted.
The victim was Arthur Lee (Dy Juat Suy), manager of Equitable Trading Company. Gloria Caballero, a 20-year-old widow, was Lee’s mistress, receiving monetary support from him. She later became involved with Ricardo Parulan. During their relationship, Parulan asked about Lee’s wealth and proposed kidnapping him for money, which Gloria initially took as a joke.
On June 10, 1947, Parulan insisted Gloria keep her date with Lee. After dining, Lee drove Gloria home. Upon arrival, Parulan, armed with a revolver, accosted Lee, ordered him to give his driver’s seat to Crisanto Santos, and forced Lee and Gloria into the car, directing Santos to drive to Bocaue. During the trip, Parulan demanded P15,000 from Lee in exchange for his and Gloria’s lives, which Lee said he did not have. In Bambang, Bocaue, they procured a motorized banca. Aboard the banca, Parulan continued to maltreat Lee and Gloria, ordered Lee to remove his clothes, and asked Gloria to remove her watch and commend herself to God. After Lee again stated he could only give P500, Parulan shot him, and Paulino Natividad threw him overboard. Parulan fired three more shots at Lee in the water. The group returned to shore, abandoned Lee’s Packard in Marilao, and returned to Manila. Lee’s decomposing body was found on June 18, 1947, in Bambang, Bocaue, Bulacan, with four gunshot wounds.

ISSUE

The primary legal issues involved the nature of the crime committed, the criminal liability of each accused, the presence of qualifying and aggravating circumstances, and the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties due to a lack of the requisite votes to impose the death penalty under the law in force at the time of the crime’s commission.
1. Nature of the Crime: The crime committed was the complex crime of kidnapping with murder under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18 . Parulan kidnapped Lee with the purpose of extorting money. When his efforts failed, he killed Lee to eliminate a witness. The killing was committed with treachery (alevosia), as Parulan shot an unarmed, maltreated, and partially undressed man without any risk to himself, qualifying the homicide as murder.
2. Criminal Liability:
* Ricardo Parulan: He was the principal by direct participation. He conceived the plan, executed the kidnapping, made the ransom demands, and shot the victim.
* Gloria Caballero: She was convicted as a co-author (principal by indispensable cooperation). Her actions were indispensable: she provided information about the victim, kept the date with Lee as instructed by Parulan, and her presence was used by Parulan to pressure Lee into paying the ransom.
* Crisanto Santos: He was convicted as an accomplice. He cooperated in the execution of the crime by taking the wheel and driving the car to the kidnapping site under Parulan’s orders. His subsequent acts of staying with the group and taking the car’s radio evidenced his intent to benefit from the crime and avoid detection.
3. Jurisdiction: The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila, following its precedent in Parulan vs. Rodas (78 Phil. 855). The crime was the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. Since an element of the crime (the kidnapping) began in Manila, the Manila court had jurisdiction.
4. Penalty: For the complex crime, the penalty for the most serious offense (kidnapping in its maximum degree) in its maximum period (death) was applicable to Parulan. However, due to a dissenting opinion on jurisdiction by Justice Tuason and because the crime was committed before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 296 (The Judiciary Act of 1948), which required only eight votes for imposition of the death penalty, the Court could not muster the necessary votes for execution. By operation of law, the penalty was automatically lowered to the next lower degree: reclusion perpetua and its accessories. The penalties for Caballero and Santos as accomplices were affirmed.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Tuason dissented solely on the ground that the Court of First Instance of Manila had no jurisdiction over the crime charged, reiterating his dissenting opinion in Parulan vs. Rodas.