Criminal Law II - Case

EN BANC then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously

kidnap ALEXANDER SALDANA, AMERICO
[G.R. NO. 137182. April 24, 2003] REJUSO, JR., ERVIN TORMIS and VICTOR
CINCO for the purpose of demanding ransom in the
amount of Twelve Million Pesos (P 12,000,000.00),
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. detaining and depriving Alexander Saldana of his
ABDILA SILONGAN Y LINANDANG, personal liberty up to September 24, 1996.
MACAPAGAL SILONGAN Y LINANDANG,
AKMAD AWAL Y LAGASI, TEDDY CONTRARY TO LAW....
SILONGAN, ROLLY LAMALAN Y xxx
SAMPOLNAK, SACARIA ALON Y
PAMAALOY, JUMBRAH MANAP Y Upon arraignment,[5] all the appellants pleaded not
BANTOLINAY, RAMON PASAWILAN Y EDO, guilty to the charge. Subsequently, this Court issued a
MAYANGKANG SAGUILE, HADJI KUTANG Resolution[6] on December 9, 1997, granting the
OMAR, BASCO SILONGAN, MONGA ALON, request of the Secretary of Justice for a change of
OTENG SIILONGAN, BEDDO LAXAMANA, venue from the RTC, Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan
and FIFTY-FOUR (54) OTHERS KNOWN ONLY Kudarat, to any of the special crimes court of the RTC
BY THEIR ALIASES, AND OTHER JOHN of Quezon City. The case was raffled to the RTC,
DOES, accused, Branch 103, Quezon City, and trial ensued.

ABDILA SILONGAN Y LINANDANG, The facts established by the prosecution are as

MACAPAGAL SILONGAN Y LINANDANG, follows:
AKMAD AWAL Y LAGASI, ROLLY LAMALAN
Y SAMPOLNAK, SACARIA ALON Y On March 16, 1996, businessman Alexander Saldaa
PAMAALOY, JUMBRAH MANAP Y went to Barangay Laguilayan, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat
BANTOLINAY, and RAMON PASAWILAN Y with Americo[7] Rejuso,[8] Jr., Ervin Tormis, and
EDO, appellants. Victor Cinco to meet with a certain Macapagal
Silongan alias Commander Lambada.[9] They arrived
DECISION in the morning and were able to talk to Macapagal
concerning the gold nuggets that were purportedly
1 PER CURIAM: being sold by the latter.[10] During the F. Sagot
meeting
Macapagal told them that someone in his family has
just died and that he has to pick up an elder brother in
For automatic review is the decision[1] dated January Cotabato City, hence, they had better transact
18, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, business in the afternoon.[11]
Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 98-75208
convicting appellants Abdila Silongan, Macapagal In the afternoon, Alexanders group and Macapagal,
Silongan, Akmad Awal, Rolly Lamalan, Sacaria Alon, with a certain Teddy Silongan and another person
Jumbrah Manap, and Ramon Pasawilan of the crime named Oteng[12] Silongan, traveled to Cotabato City
of Kidnapping for Ransom with Serious Illegal to fetch Macapagals brother.[13] Afterwards, the
Detention[2] and sentencing them to suffer the group returned to Isulan on Macapagals orders. At
penalty of death. The appellants were also ordered to Isulan, Macapagal gave additional instructions to wait
pay jointly and severally, Alexander Saldaa[3] and until dark allegedly because the funeral arrangements
Americo Rejuso, Jr., indemnification damages of for his relative were not yet finished.[14] When the
P50,000 each and moral damages of P100,000 and group finally got on their way, Macapagal ordered the
P50,000, respectively. driver to drive slowly towards the highway.[15] Oteng
Silongan and his bodyguards alighted somewhere
along the way.

The amended information,[4] under which the Then around 7:30 p.m., as they headed to the
appellants have been tried and convicted, reads as highway, Alexander Saldaa noticed that Macapagal
follows: Silongan was busy talking over his hand-held radio
with someone. But because the conversation was in
That on or about 8:30 oclock in the evening of March the Maguindanaoan dialect, he did not understand
16, 1996, at Sitio Kamangga, Barangay Laguilayan, what was being said. At 8:30 p.m., they neared the
Municipality of Isulan, Province of Sultan Kudarat, highway. Macapagal ordered the driver to stop.
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, in the company Suddenly, 15 armed men appeared. Alexander and his
with other unidentified persons, conspiring, three companions were ordered to go out of the
confederating and mutually aiding one another, did vehicle, tied up, and blindfolded. Macapagal and
 Criminal Law II - Case

Teddy were also tied up and blindfolded, but nothing Akmad Awal, Rolly Lamalan, Sacaria Alon, Jumbrah
more was done to them.[16] Alexander identified the Manap, and Ramon Pasawilan.
appellants Oteng Silongan, Akmad Awal,[17] Abdila
Silongan alias Long Silongan,[18] and Rolly Lamalan The prosecution presented Alexander Saldana; his
as belonging to the group that abducted them.[19] He wife, Carmelita Saldaa, and a certain Major Parallag
also pointed to an elder brother of Macapagal, alias who was responsible for Alexanders release.
Keddy, alias Wet, and an alias Ngunib as also Carmelita testified as to matters relayed to her by
belonging to the group.[20] Americo Rejuso, Jr., and identified the ransom notes
sent to her. Major Parallag, for his part, testified as to
The four victims were taken to a mountain hideout in the operations undertaken by the military to effect the
Maganoy, Maguindanao, where a certain Salik rescue of Alexander.
Karem, Hadji Kutang Omar alias Commander Palito,
and Jumbrah Manap met them.[21] Initially, the three In their defense, all the accused, except Macapagal
demanded fifteen million pesos (P15,000,000) from and Teddy Silongan, denied ever having met
Alexander Saldaa for his release, but the amount was Alexander Saldaa and his three (3) companions much
eventually reduced to twelve million pesos after much less having kidnapped them.[32] Additionally, all
haggling.[22] They made Alexander write a letter to eight of the accused established that they came under
his wife to pay the ransom. The letter was hand- the control of the government military authorities
carried by a certain Armand Jafar, alias Dante, and when they surrendered as Moro Islamic Liberation
two of the victims, Ervin Tormis and Victor Cinco, Front (MILF) and Moro National Liberation Front
who both later managed to escape.[23] No ransom (MNLF) rebels.[33] They claim they voluntarily
was obtained so Commander Palito and Jumbrah surrendered when a certain Perry Gonzales convinced
Manap sent other persons and one of the victims, them that the government would grant them amnesty,
Americo Rejuso, Jr., to renegotiate with Alexanders pay for their guns, and give them the items listed in
wife. No agreement was likewise reached. their lists of demands.[34]

Seven days later, Alexander Saldaa and Americo On the witness stand, appellant Macapagal Silongan
Rejuso, Jr., were transferred to the town proper of admitted being with Alexanders group in the van
Maganoy. Commander Palito, Jumbrah Manap, when they were waylaid. But he denies involvement
Sacaria[24] Alon alias Jack Moro,[25] Ramon in the kidnapping.[35] In fact he said when Alexander
2 Pasawilan,[26] guarded them. When the kidnappers Saldaa saw him in the mountains, he F.was Sagot
there
learned that the military was looking for Alexander, specifically to beg Mayangkang Saguile to release
they returned to the mountain hideout and stayed there Alexander. He further claimed that he was also
for two weeks.[27] hogtied by the armed men who blocked the van that
evening of March 16, 1996. He testified that he was
At one time, Alexander Saldaa was made to stay at a separated from Teddy Silongan and did not know
river hideout where a certain Commander Kugta held what happened to Teddy.[36] He admitted knowing
him and sheltered his abductors for at least a week. Alexander Saldaa for four months prior to March 16,
[28] There, Alexander saw Macapagal Silongan with 1996 because the latter asked for his help in locating a
Jumbrah Manap and other armed men. These men plane that crashed in the mountains.[37] According to
brought Alexander to Talayan where he met him, Alexander Saldaa hired him to act as a guide in
Mayangkang Saguile. From Talayan, Mayangkang treasure hunting. When asked to give more
and his men brought Alexander to Maitum, information about the plane, Macapagal Silongan
Kabuntalan, Maguindanao, where Mayangkangs lair stated that he saw it before he met Alexander, and that
is located. Mayangkang made Alexander write more when he saw said plane it had no more sidewalls. He
letters[29] to the latters family. On several occasions, added that many people have already seen the plane
Mayangkang himself would write letters[30] to and that vines and mosses have grown about the plane
Alexanders wife. Alexander personally was detained because it had been quite some time since it crashed.
in Kabuntalan for a total period of five (5) months and [38]
was kept constantly guarded by armed men. Among
his guards were the appellants Macapagal Silongan,
Abdila Silongan, Akmad Awal, and a certain Basco Appellant Teddy Silongan, for his part, testified that
Silongan.[31] his cousin Macapagal Silongan contacted him so he
On September 24, 1996, Mayangkang released could act as interpreter for Macapagal because
Alexander Saldaa to the military in exchange for a Alexander could not speak Maguindanaoan and
relative who was caught delivering a ransom note to Macapagal does not understand any other language.
Alexanders family. However, only eight of the He added that after the van stopped, one of those who
accused were brought to trial, namely, Abdila, stopped the van opened its rear door and then
Macapagal, and Teddy, all surnamed Silongan, someone hit him with the butt of a gun rendering him
 Criminal Law II - Case

unconscious. When he regained consciousness he Hence, this automatic review.[44] The appellants in
found himself hogtied like Macapagal but could not their brief allege that the trial court committed the
find Alexanders group or the van.[39] following errors:

All eight of the accused, except Akmad Awal, I

admitted having signed separate extra-judicial
confessions[40] admitting to their complicity in the THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING
kidnapping of Alexander Saldaa and his companions, THAT PROSECUTION EVIDENCE HAS
but they asserted that they did not understand what ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF ACCUSED
they were signing.[41] Additionally, they assert that BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE
they did not know or hire Atty. Plaridel Bohol III, the MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES IN THE
lawyer who appears to have assisted them in making TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES;
their confessions.[42] II
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment[43] on THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING
January 18, 1999, the decretal portion of which reads CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE PUT UP BY
as follows: ACCUSED WHICH ARE VALID, CREDIBLE AND
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered IN ACCORDANCE WITH HUMAN
finding the herein accused: EXPERIENCES.[45]

1. ABDILA SILONGAN y Linandang; Essentially, the issue before this Court is whether the
guilt of the appellants has been proven by credible
2. MACAPAGAL SILONGAN y Linandang; evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

3. AKMAD AWAL y Lagasi; The appellants assert that the identification of the
kidnappers of Alexander Saldaa is gravely flawed.
4. ROLLY LAMALAN y Sampolnak; They contend that Alexander Saldaa and Americo
5. SACARIA ALON y Pamaaloy; Rejuso,Jr., could not have positively identified Rolly
Lamalan, Akmad Awal, Sacaria Alon, and Abdila
6. JUMBRAH MANAP y Bantolinay; and Silongan as their abductors[46] because the incident
3 happened at night in a place where there F. Sagot
was no
7. RAMON PASAWILAN y Edo electricity,[47] and more importantly, because both of
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as principals, of them were hogtied and blindfolded at the time.
the crime, herein charged, of Kidnapping for Ransom Americo Rejuso, Jr., erroneously pointed to Akmad
as defined by law, and the said seven (7) accused are Awal when asked to identify the accused Teddy
hereby sentenced to DEATH as provided for in Silongan. Neither did he know the names of Jumbrah
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Manap and Ramon Pasawilan.[48] Alexander Saldaa,
RA 7659. for his part, testified that Mayangkang Saguile
detained him for five months in Kabuntalan,[49] but
when asked in open court to point to Mayangkang
On the civil aspect, the above-named seven (7) Saguile,[50] he pointed to someone who was not
accused are hereby ordered jointly and severally to Mayangkang Saguile. The appellants claim the real
pay Alexander Saldana the sum of Fifty Thousand Mayangkang Saguile remains at large.
Pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnification damages and
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral The appellants also point to inconsistencies in the
damages; and to pay Americo Rejuso, Jr. the sum of testimony of Alexander Saldaa who testified that
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnification Teddy and Macapagal Silongan were among the 15
damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as armed persons who stopped the vehicle and abducted
moral damages. the group[51] after having earlier testified that the two
were inside the van and were unarmed.[52] Also,
The accused TEDDY SILONGAN is hereby Alexander testified that they were abducted around
ACQUITTED of the charge of Kidnapping for 7:30 p.m. on March 16, 1996, but at pre-trial, the time
Ransom filed in this case. of the abduction was stipulated to be around 8:30 p.m.
on the same date.[53]
Cost against the accused, except Teddy Silongan.
The appellants further argue that the fact that they are
SO ORDERED. rebel surrenderees precludes conviction for the
common crime of kidnapping.[54] Citing People v.
Hernandez,[55] they contend that common crimes are
 Criminal Law II - Case

absorbed in rebellion. Therefore, the trial court erred well as when Alexander was transferred to the hideout
when it convicted them of kidnapping for ransom. in the town proper of Maganoy.[60] For their part, the
appellants Jumbrah Manap, Abdila Silongan, and
Finally, appellants assert that some of them are Sacaria Alon guarded Alexander both in the mountain
illiterate and that the trial court should have hideout of Maganoy and in Kabuntalan.[61] These
accordingly mitigated their liability. instances, among many others, gave Alexander ample
At the outset, we hold that the trial court correctly time to see and imprint their faces in his memory. We
ruled that the extrajudicial statements of the likewise note that as borne by the records, the
appellants are inadmissible in evidence. The kidnappers made little or no attempt to conceal their
assistance afforded by Atty. Plaridel Bohol is not the identities. In fact, they even told Alexander their
assistance contemplated by the fundamental law. Atty. names when he asked for them.[62] The positive
Bohol limited his assistance (f)or the purpose of (the) identification Alexander and Americo made in open
written waiver as expressly stated by him in all court[63] thus deserves much weight. We have held in
confessions. It does not appear that he was present People v. Bacungay,[64] that it is the most natural
and independently and competently participated in all reaction for victims of crimes to strive to remember
the investigation proceedings. All the accused, except the faces of their assailants and the manner in which
Teddy Silongan, are conversant only in the they committed the crime.
Maguindanaoan dialect and yet the statements were That prosecution witness Americo Rejuso, Jr., does
written in almost perfect Filipino. There is no not know the names of the abductors is not sufficient
evidence that the accused, prior to the taking of the to cast doubt on his testimony. It is not necessary that
supposed confessions, were made aware of their right the name of an accused be specifically stated by a
to be silent and to have independent and competent witness in an affidavit or in his testimony. Victims of
counsel. Neither is there evidence that, as required by crimes cannot always identify their assailants by
Rep. Act. No. 7438, [56]the statements were read to name. It is imperative, however, that the attacker be
and explained to the accused by the investigating pointed out and unequivocally identified during the
officer. trial in court as the same person who committed the
This notwithstanding, we find there exist sufficient crime.[65] We hold that this imperative requirement
evidence on record to sustain the conviction of the has been met as to all appellants.
4 appellants. Moreover, not only are the testimonies ofF.Alexander
Sagot

The rule in evidence, which the Court has always Saldaa and Americo Rejuso, Jr., consistent in all
applied, is that positive identification prevails over the material aspects, they are also replete with precise
simple denial of the accused. Denial, like alibi, is an details of the crime and the specific involvements of
insipid and weak defense, being easy to fabricate and the different accused therein. In more than one
difficult to disprove. A positive identification of the instance, Alexander has identified the appellants to be
accused, when categorical, consistent and his kidnappers. He has recounted both on the witness
straightforward, and without any showing of ill stand as well as in his sworn statement the specific
motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the acts performed by the appellants. The records of this
matter, prevails over this defense.[57] case reflect that in more than one instance, the
appellants have acted together as guards to Alexander
The conditions which purportedly created serious in Kabuntalan, Maganoy, and while he was being
doubt on the ability of prosecution witnesses transferred from one lair to another.[66] There can be
Alexander Saldaa and Americo Rejuso, Jr., to identify no question, therefore, that the appellants committed
positively their abductors did not perdure throughout the crime. Absent any showing that the trial court
the duration of their captivity. The records bear out overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied any fact or
that Alexander and Americo both had a number of circumstance of weight and influence which could
opportunities to see the faces of the appellants. They affect the outcome of the case, the factual findings
were transferred from one lair to another without and assessment of credibility of a witness made by the
blindfolds and often in broad daylight. These trial court remain binding on the appellate tribunal.
improved circumstances necessarily permitted both [67]
Alexander and Americo to see the faces of the
appellants. Moreover, it must be remembered that The records are bereft of any evidence that Alexander
Alexander was detained for six months. During this Saldaa entertained any particular or specific prejudice
period, Alexander saw them, ate with them, and against the appellants especially because there were
actually lived with them. Appellants Akmad Awal and 68 accused in this case. The trial court correctly
Ramon Pasawilan have both acted as guards to opined that it was quite strange that Alexander would
Alexander many times: Akmad in Kabuntalan[58] and point to the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime
Ramon in the mountain hideout of Maganoy[59] as if it were true that all of them, except Macapagal and
Teddy, do not know or have not even met Alexander.
 Criminal Law II - Case

Indeed, it was in Alexanders best interest to implicate armed men appeared and blocked their vehicle.
only those people who were responsible for abducting Finally, while the 15 men took away Alexander
him. He has nothing to gain by implicating and Saldaa and his three companions, nothing was done to
testifying against persons innocent of the crime. In Macapagal or to Teddy Silongan. By their own
People v. Garalde,[68] this Court ruled that when admission, they were just left behind after being
there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or hogtied. How they managed to escape was not
improper motive why a prosecution witness would explained. All these taken together give rise to the
testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate reasonable inference that Macapagal had concocted
him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full the funeral for a supposed recently deceased relative
faith and credit. purposely to afford his co-conspirators time to stage
the kidnapping. Then, also, it was through
The essence of the crime of kidnapping and serious Macapagals indispensable contribution that the armed
illegal detention as defined and penalized in Article men were able to stop the vehicle at a precise location
267[69] of the Revised Penal Code is the actual near the highway.
deprivation of the victims liberty coupled with proof
beyond reasonable doubt of an intent of the accused to Likewise, the prosecution has established beyond
effect the same. It is thus essential that the following reasonable doubt that the kidnapping was committed
be established by the prosecution: (1) the offender is a for the purpose of extorting ransom from Alexander,
private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, as to warrant the mandatory imposition of the death
or in any other manner deprives the latter of his penalty. For the crime to be committed, at least one
liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be overt act of demanding ransom must be made. It is not
illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any necessary that there be actual payment of ransom
of the four circumstances enumerated in Article 267 because what the law requires is merely the existence
be present.[70] But if the kidnapping was done for the of the purpose of demanding ransom. In this case, the
purpose of extorting ransom, the fourth element is no records are replete with instances when the kidnappers
longer necessary.[71] demanded ransom from the victim. At the mountain
hideout in Maganoy where Alexander was first taken,
There is no mistaking the clear, overwhelming he was made to write a letter to his wife asking her to
evidence that the appellants abducted Alexander pay the ransom of twelve million pesos. Among those
Saldaa and his companions at gunpoint and deprived who demanded ransom were the appellants Ramon
5 them of their freedom. That the appellants took shifts F. Sagot
Pasawilan,[75] Sacaria Alon,[76] and Jumbrah
guarding the victims until only Alexander was left to Manap.[77] Then, when Alexander was in the custody
be guarded and in transferring Alexander from one of Mayangkang Saguile, not only was he made to
hideout to another to prevent him from being rescued write more letters to his family, Mayangkang himself
by the military establish that they acted in concert in wrote ransom notes. In those letters, Mayangkang
executing their common criminal design. even threatened to kill Alexander if the ransom was
Macapagals participation is clearly evident from the not paid.
records. Aside from being one of Alexanders armed As regards the argument that the crime was politically
guards in Kabuntalan,[72] and having been part of a motivated and that consequently, the charge should
party which brought Alexander from the river hideout have been rebellion and not kidnapping, we find the
of Commander Kugta to Mayangkang Saguiles lair in same likewise to be without merit. As held in Office
Talayan,[73] indirect evidence also support of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga Del Norte
Macapagals participation in the criminal design. First, vs. CA,[78] the political motivation for the crime
Macapagal made several postponements of their trip must be shown in order to justify finding the crime
on March 16, 1996 until it was already 7:30 in the committed to be rebellion. Merely because it is
evening. His reason that someone in his family died is alleged that appellants were members of the Moro
not corroborated at all. Teddy, his cousin, never Islamic Liberation Front or of the Moro National
mentioned it, and his other relative, co-accused Abdila Liberation Front does not necessarily mean that the
Silongan, was reticent about it. In fact, nobody told crime of kidnapping was committed in furtherance of
the trial court the name of the deceased relative. a rebellion. Here, the evidence adduced is insufficient
Secondly, Americo testified that when they stopped for a finding that the crime committed was politically
over at Macapagals house, he heard the wife of motivated. Neither have the appellants sufficiently
Macapagal utter the words kawawa naman sila as they proven their allegation that the present case was filed
were leaving.[74] Thirdly, it was established that against them because they are rebel surrenderees. This
Macapagal ordered the driver to proceed slowly court has invariably viewed the defense of frame-up
towards the highway. During this time, he was busy with disfavor. Like the defense of alibi, it can be just
talking on his handheld radio with someone and the as easily concocted.
victims heard him say ok. When they were near the
highway, he ordered the driver to stop whereupon 15
 Criminal Law II - Case

Finally, that appellants Jumbrah Manap, Abdila LAMALAN, SACARIA ALON, JUMBRAH
Silongan, Rolly Lamalan, Sacaria Alon, and MANAP, and RAMON PASAWILAN of the crime of
Macapagal Silongan are illiterate is not sufficient to Kidnapping for Ransom with Serious Illegal
lower the penalty. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Detention and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of
Code is specific. It states that (i)n all cases in which DEATH is AFFIRMED. Further, the appellants are
the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, Alexander
be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating Saldaa and Americo Rejuso, Jr., nominal damages of
or aggravating circumstances that may have attended P50,000.00 each and moral damages of P100,000.00
the commission of the deed. Hence, while illiteracy is and P50,000.00, respectively.
generally mitigating in all crimes, such circumstance,
even if present, cannot result in a reduction of the
penalty in this case. In accordance with Section 25 of R.A. No. 7659
Considering that it has been proven beyond amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, let
reasonable doubt that the abduction of Alexander the records of this case be forthwith forwarded, upon
Saldaa, Americo Rejuso, Jr., Ervin Tormis, and Victor finality of this decision, to the Office of the President
Cinco were for the purpose of extorting ransom, the for possible exercise of the pardoning power.
trial court correctly imposed the death penalty.

As already stated, the trial court ordered the appellants

to pay, jointly and severally, Alexander Saldaa and
Americo Rejuso, Jr., indemnification damages of SO ORDERED.
P50,000 each and moral damages of P100,000 and
P50,000, respectively. However, to be entitled to
actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual
amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty,
premised upon competent proof and on the best
evidence available to the injured party.[79] There is
no evidence adduced before the trial court as to actual
damages suffered by either Alexander or Americo.
6 Hence, we are constrained to delete the award. This F. Sagot
notwithstanding, under Article 2221[80] of the New
Civil Code, nominal damages are adjudicated in order
that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated by
the defendant, may be vindicated by him.
Conformably, the Court rules that both Alexander and
Americo shall be awarded P50,000 each as nominal
damages.[81]

We affirm the award of P100,000 to Alexander and

P50,000 to Americo as moral damages. The amount
of moral anxiety suffered by the two victims is in no
wise the same. Undoubtedly, Alexanders family had
undergone greater distress in the uncertainty of seeing
Alexander again.

Three Justices of the Court maintain their position that

R.A. No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it
prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit
to the ruling of the majority that the law is
constitutional, and that the death penalty can be
lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial

Court of Quezon City, Branch 103, convicting the
appellants ABDILA SILONGAN, MACAPAGAL
SILONGAN, AKMAD AWAL, ROLLY