PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V.

DANIEL MALUENDA
G.R. NO. 115351, MARCH27, 1998

FACTS:
In an information dated November 20, 1992, herein appellants, together with a certain
Gil Bueno were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Lianga, Surigao Del Sur for
conspiring and mutually helping one another in kidnapping Eng. Miguel Rasus for the
purpose of extorting money from the said victim. After trial in due course, the lower court
finds the three appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime
of kidnapping for ransom and sentence them to suffer penalty of reclusion perpetua. In
view of the penalty imposed, Legarto, Maluenda and Mondaga interposed an appeal
directly to the Supreme Court. However, before the promulgation of the instant case,
Mondaga withdrew the appeal. Hence, the Court will only pass upon the criminal liability
of Legarto and Maluenda.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Legarto, Maluenda and Mondaga, holding that they
successfully perpetrated a clear case of kidnapping. It gave complete credence to the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses whom it deemed unquestionably reliable,
sincere and candid. The lower court held that Mondaga was the mastermind of the
kidnapping. While Legarto portrayed himself as good Samaritan to the Resus couple,
the trial court stated that he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing and described his testimony
as evasive, false and shallow.

In the Court of Appeals it was partially meritorious which deemed Legarto based upon
the evidence presented, should be held liable only as an accessory.

ISSUE: Whether Legarto can be considered as an accessory

RULING: Yes.
The Supreme Court finds the appeal partially meritorious as regards Legarto who, in the
light of the evidence presented, should be held liable as an accessory. Clearly, Legarto
cannot be convicted as principal by indispensable cooperation because the prosecution
failed to allege, much less prove, any overt act on his part showing direct participation in
the kidnapping itself, his participation in the incident being limited to acts committed
after the abduction was already consummated. Moreover, the testimony of the victim
clearly shows that he did not actually see Legarto transport Mondaga’s companion.
From the foregoing, it is clear that Legarto’s alleged direct participation in the
kidnapping is without factual basis and is nothing more than an inference from a
presumption. The Court however, cannot completely free him from criminal liability
because although he had no direct hand in the kidnapping, he is still criminally liable as
an accessory to the crime of kidnapping for ransom considering that he has knowledge
of the kidnapping for ransom and took part in the crime subsequent to its commission by
proving its effects. Thus, he is an accessory to the crime charged. In contrast,
Maluenda’s conviction deserves affirmation, as his culpability in the kidnapping was
clearly proven by the prosecution through the credible testimonies of the witnesses,
including the victim himself. In view thereof, the decision is affirmed as regards to
Maluenda’s conviction, but modified as regards Legarto, for the Court just found him
guilty as an accessory only.