It is essential in the crime of illegal detention that there be actualconfinement or restriction of the person of the offended party.
Not necessary that the victimbe placed in an enclosure, as long as he isdeprived,
in any manner
, of his liberty.
Detention is illegal when notordered by competent authority or notpermitted by law.
Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping with murder – when the victimis killed or dies as a consequence of thedetention, the maximum penalty (death)shall be imposed.
Where the victim is taken fromone place to another solely for the purposeof killing him, the crime committed ismurder.
Maximum penalty is imposed inthe ff. cases:
If the purpose of detention is toextort ransom
When the victim is killed ordies as a consequence of the detention
When the victim is raped
When the victim is subjected totorture or dehumanizing acts.
Conspiracy to extort ransommakes all the conspirators liable under thisarticle, including those who did not takepart in the money.
Illegal detentionArbitrary detention
Committed by a privateindividual, whounlawfully deprives aperson of his libertyCommitted by a publicofficer or employee, whodetains a person withoutlegal groundCrime against personallibertyCrime against thefundamental laws of thestate
People vs. Tomio
A Japanese national named Tomio was arrested after beingimplicated for possessing marijuana. Two other Japaneseclaimed that they paid money for Tomio’s release and sothey held Tomio under their custody, asking for the amountthey allegedly advance to the police.HELD: Even if the two accused only wanted to recover themoney they allegedly advanced to the police, the crime isstill kidnapping because of the essential element of deprivation of liberty.
People vs. Mercado
The accused held a knife against his girlfriend’s sister fornearly five hours. The victim’s ordeal ended only after thebarangay captain was able to subdue the accused.HELD: The crime is kidnapping because the victim wasactually restrained or deprived of her liberty,notwithstanding the fact that the accused only wanted thevictim to produce her.
People vs. Del Socorro
Del Socorro grabbed a little girl and brought the child to adoctor, asking for 700 pesos in return. The doctor gave thechild to her spinster aunt.HELD: The defense that the child voluntarily went with theaccused is belied by the fact that the child openly resistedthe abduction and even had to be carried to the jeep.
People vs. Lim
Lim took in two young girls who were loitering in front of her sari-sari store. Lim sent the younger girl to Cebu whilethe older girl stayed in the store. Days later, the girls’father arrived to bring the two girls back with him.HELD: There is no kidnapping in this case because the twominors voluntarily entered Lim’s residence and there wasno showing that there was actual confinement orrestriction of the person of the offended party. Both girlswere free to go in and out of the store.
People vs. Padica
A 14-year old boy was brought to a sugarcane plantation,where he was shot and killed immediately. The accuseddemanded ransom soon after.HELD: Where the evident purpose of taking the victim wasto kill him, and from the acts of the accused it cannot beinferred that the latter’s purpose was to actually detain ordeprive the victim of his liberty, the subsequent killing of the victim did not constitute the crime of murder. Thedemand for ransom did not convert the crime intokidnapping since no deprivation of liberty was involved.
People vs. Luartes
Luartes kidnapped a 3-yr old girl outside Isettan Recto. Thegirl was in the mall with her mother, who lost her. Luartes’defense was that he was merely helping the lost girl findher mother. He says he had no intention of kidnappingJunichi and that the prosecution witnesses (police officers)merely misconstrued his actuations.HELD: If indeed accused-appellant was trying to help thelost child, why then did he misrepresent himself as heruncle? And, if his intention was only to help the child lookfor her mother, why did he have to board a passengerjeepney taking the child with him?The essence of kidnapping under Art. 267 is the actualdeprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the intentof the accused to effect it. The crime in this case clearlycomes under par. 4 of Art. 267 of the Penal Code. Thedetention was committed by Luartes who was a privateindividual and the person kidnapped was a three (3)-yearold minor.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer95