On
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention

ART.267

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.

2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.

3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.

The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a private individual;
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the liberty;
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
4. That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present (detention becomes serious):
a. that the kidnapping/detention lasts for more than 3 days,
b. that it is committed by simulating public authority,
c. that any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made, or
d. that the person kidnapped or detained is a minor (except if parent is the offender), female or a public officer.

Qualifying Circumstances:Death is imposed [death penalty suspended]
1. Purpose is to extort ransom.
2. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention.
3. When the victim is raped.
4. When victim is subjected to torture of dehumanizing act

The offenders here are private individuals or public officers acting in their private capacity. If they are public officers, they are covered by the crimes under Title 2.

When a public officer conspires with a private person in the commission of any of the crimes under Title IX, the crime is also one committed under this title and not under Title II.

The purpose is immaterial when any of the circumstances in the first paragraph of Art. 267 is present.

Essential element: deprivation of liberty.

Definition of ransom: It is the money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person or persons, a payment that releases a person from captivity

Special complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder: When the victim dies or is killed as a consequence of the detention.

Forcible abduction: If a woman is transported from one place to another by virtue of restraining her of her liberty, and that act is coupled with lewd designs.

Serious illegal detention: If a woman is transported just to restrain her of her liberty. There is no lewd design or lewd intent.

Grave coercion: If a woman is carried away just to break her will, to compel her to agree to the demand or request by the offender.


PEOPLE vs. OBESO G.R. No. 152285. 10/24/03
It is true that for kidnapping to take place, it is not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure; neither is it necessary that the detention be prolonged. However, the essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.

PEOPLE vs. PICKRELL, G.R No. 120409. 10/23/03
Although the victim my have inceptually consented to go with the offender to a place but the victim is thereafter prevented, with the use of force, from leaving the place where he was brought to with his
consent and is detained against his will, the offender is guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

PEOPLE vs. PUA, G.R. NO. 144050. 11/11/03
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances mentioned in Article 267 were present in the commission of the offense

People v Padica (1993)
Where the evident purpose of taking the victim was to kill him, and from the acts of the accused it cannot be inferred that the latter’s purpose was to actually detain or deprive the victim of his liberty, the subsequent killing of the victim did not constitute the crime of kidnapping.

The demand for ransom did not convert the crime into kidnapping, since no deprivation of liberty was involved.

People v Luartes (1999)
The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it.

People v Pavillare (2000)
The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours does not alter the nature of the crime committed.

People v. Tomio
Physical detention is not necessary. It is enough that the victim is under the complete control of the perpetrators as in this case when the Japanese victim had to rely on his abductors for survival after
he was tricked into believing that the police was after him.

It was also held in this case that keeping a person as a collateral for payment of an obligation is kidnapping.

The amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of "special complex crime" of kidnapping with murder or homicide.

Bar Exam Question (2006)

Kidnapping (2006)

Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles factory of Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they will only teach Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to a fishpond in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in their shack because he was running from the NBI. The trio then left in Mario's car for Manila where they called up Luke's family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they give a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them, because of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio and TV. Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked, especially when the announcer stated that there is a shoot-to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to the seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they smashed his head with a shovel and buried him in the sand. However, they were seen by a barangay kagawad who arrested them and brought them to the police station. Upon interrogation, they confessed and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4 were arrested
and charged. What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit? 

Alternative Answer:

a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with homicide. The original intention was to demand ransom from the family with the threat of killing. As a consequence of the kidnapping, however, Luke was killed. Thus, the victim was deprived of his freedom and the subsequent killing, though committed by another person, was a consequence of the detention. Hence, this properly qualified the crime as the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide (People v. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554, October 1, 2003; Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).

b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the sand committed murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code).

c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian humility" does not constitute a crime.

Alternative Answer:

a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with ransom. After kidnapping Luke, they demanded ransom with the threat of killing him. However, the killing of Luke is separate from the kidnapping having been committed by other persons, who had nothing to do with the kidnapping, and who will be liable for a different crime (Penultimate par. of Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).

b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the sand committed murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code).

c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian humility" does not constitute a crime.

Bar Exam Question (2005)

Kidnapping w/ Homicide (2005)

Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses Martin and Pops Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old mother was seriously ill, she asked Martin for a cash advance of P1,000.00 but Martin refused. One morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martin’s son with stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in the afternoon, she demanded P5,000.00 as ransom for the release of his son. Martin did not pay the ransom. Subsequently, Paz disappeared. After a couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the attic with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely three minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or crimes did Paz commit? Explain. 

Suggested Answer:

Paz committed the composite crime of kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RPC as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Under the law, any person who shall detain another or in any manner deprive him of liberty and the victim dies as a consequence is liable for kidnapping with homicide and shall be penalized with the maximum penalty. In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the one-week-old child was merely kept in the attic of his house, gagged with stockings and placed in a box sealed with tape, the deprivation of liberty and the intention to kill becomes apparent. Though it may appear that the means employed by Paz was attended by treachery (killing of an infant), nevertheless, a separate charge of murder will not be proper in view of the amendment. Here, the term "homicide" is used in its generic sense and covers all forms of killing whether in the nature of murder or otherwise. It is of no moment that the evidence shows the death of the child took place three minutes after the box was sealed and the demand for the ransom took place in the afternoon. The intention is controlling here, that is, ransom was demanded.

Alternative Answer:

Murder qualified by treachery because the victim was only one week old. The offense was attended with the aggravating circumstance of lack of respect due to the age of the victim, cruelty and abuse of confidence. In People v. Lora (G.R. No, L-49430, March 30, 1982), the Court found that a child subjected to similar treatment as the infant, in this case, would have died instantly, negating any intent to kidnap or detain when ransom was sought. Demand for ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping with murder because the demand was merely a scheme by the offender (Paz) to conceal the body of her victim.

Bar Exam Question (2004)

Kidnapping; Effects; Voluntary Release (2004)

DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day, DAN released CHU even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the trial of his case, DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the child before the lapse of the 3-day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping were instituted. Will DAN's defense prosper? Reason briefly. 

Suggested Answer:

No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the offended party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and immaterial in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such circumstance does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in the crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 (Asistio v. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673 [1964])

Bar Exam Question (2006)

Kidnapping; Illegal Detention; Minority (2006)

Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job, Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought them to an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.

1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? 

Suggested Answer:

Job and Nonoy committed 1) kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape for the subsequent death of Dang, and 2) kidnapping with rape against her sister, Lyn. The victims, who were kidnapped and detained, were subsequently raped and killed (as regards Dang) in the course of their detention. The composite crime is committed regardless of whether the subsequent crimes were purposely sought or merely an afterthought (People v. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-5, Februarys,
2004).

Alternative Answer:

Job and Nonoy committed 2 counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape (Art. 342, Revised Penal Code) and the separate offense of murder against Dang. The crime committed is abduction because there was lewd design when they took the victims away and subsequently raped them. The killing thereafter constitutes the separate offense of murder qualified by treachery.

2. What penalties should be imposed on them? 

Suggested Answer:

Since the death penalty has already been prohibited, reclusion perpetua is the appropriate penalty (RA. 9346). In the case of the minor Nonoy, his penalty shall be one degree lower (Art. 68, Revised Penal Code).

3. Will Nonoy's minority exculpate him? 

Suggested Answer:

Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act, which retroacts to the date that the crime was committed, Nonoy will be exculpated if he was 15 years old or below. However, if he was above 15 years old but below 18 years of age, he will be liable if he acted with discernment. As the problem shows that Nonoy acted with discernment, he will be entitled to a suspension of sentence. (NOTA BENE: R.A. 9344 is outside the coverage of the examination)

4. Is the non-recovery of Lyn's body material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy? 

Suggested Answer:

The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because the corpus delicti of the crime which is kidnapping with rape of Lyn has been duly proven.

Alternative Answer:

The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because the corpus delicti of the crime which is forcible abduction with rape of Lyn has been duly proven.

Bar Exam Question (1996)

Kidnapping; Proposal to Kidnap (1996)

Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so that he may succeed to raping her and eventually making her accede to marry him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported Edgardo to the police.

May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences with the commission of overt act, not
preparatory act. Proposal to commit kidnapping is not a crime.

Bar Exam Question (1997)

Kidnapping; Serious Illegal Detention (1997)

A and B conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and detained him. The duo then called up C's wife informing her that they had her husband and would release him only if she paid a ransom in the amount of P10,000,000 and that, if she were to fail, they would kill him. The next day, C, who had just recovered from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he might die if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B released C during the early morning of the third day of detention. Charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention provided in Article 267, RPC, A and B filed a petition for bail. They contended that since they had voluntarily released C within three days from commencement of the detention, without having been paid any amount of the ransom demanded and before the institution of criminal proceedings against them, the crime committed was only slight illegal detention prescribed in Article 268, RPC. After hearing, the trial court found the evidence of guilt to be strong and therefore denied the petition for bail. On appeal, the only issue was: Was the crime committed kidnapping and serious detention or slight Illegal detention? Decide.

Suggested Answer:

The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and serious illegal detention because they made a demand for ransom and threatened to kill C if the latter's wife did not pay the same. Without the demand for ransom, the crime could have been slight illegal detention only. The contention of A and B that they had voluntary released C within three days from the commencement of the detention is immaterial as they are charged with a crime where the penalty prescribed is death (Asistio vs. San Diego. 10SCRA673). They were properly denied bail because the trial court found that the evidence of guilt in the information for kidnapping and serious Illegal detention is strong.