1. KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM; DEATH PENALTY NOT REDUCED BY CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY RELEASE AND NON-ATTAINMENT OF PURPOSE. — The death penalty prescribed for kidnapping for ransom is not reduced by the circumstances of voluntary release by the captors and non-attainment of the purpose.

2. ID.; ID.; ARTS. 267 AND 268, REVISED PENAL CODE, ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. — A consideration of the legislative history of Articles 267 and 268 of the Revised Penal Code reveals that said articles are independent of each other, and that the mitigating circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Art. 268 modify only slight illegal detentions under that article and does not apply to the acts described in Article 267.

This is a verified petition for certiorari and habeas corpus, praying for the annulment and setting aside of the orders of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (in its Case Q-5388) denying bail to the petitioners herein, and that the said parties be granted bail by this Court.

It is not contested that on July 22, 1963, petitioners Luis Asistio alias Baby, Pedro Rebullo alias Pita, Edgardo Pascual alias Ging, Lorenzo Meneses alias Lory, Alfredo Caimbon alias Tatoo, Benigno Urquico alias Bening, Federico Zaragoza alias Det, and Jose Baello alias Celing, were, with various other persons, Accused by the Quezon City fiscal of the crime of kidnapping for ransom in violation of the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18. The amended information describes how the crime was committed in the following terms:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 26th day of December, 1962, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above named accused, being private individuals with the exception of the accused VICTORINO ARANDA and LORENZO MENESES who are public officers, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping and aiding one another, with threats to kill the person of CHUA PAO alias ’SO NA’, and for the purpose of extorting ransom in the amount in TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) from the said CHUA PAO Alias ’SO NA’ or from his wife did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap, detain and deprive the person of the said CHUA PAO alias ’SO NA’ of his liberty, to his damage and prejudice.

That the following aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the aforestated crime:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That the accused VICTORINO ARANDA and LORENZO MENESES took advantage of their public positions as peace officers of Caloocan City and Quezon City, respectively;

2. That the aforesaid offense was committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity;

3. That in the commission of the aforesaid offense, graft and fraud were employed by the accused;

4. That the aforestated crime was committed by means of motor vehicles; and

5. That the wrong done in the commission of the aforestated offense was deliberately augmented by causing other wrongs not necessary for its commission.

Contrary to Law."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioners applied for bail on the ground that the record of the ex parte investigation conducted by the fiscal showed, from the testimony of the offended party himself, CHUA PAO alias So Na, that the latter was (a) voluntarily released by his captors (b) within 24 hours from seizure and (c) without any ransom being, in fact, paid. The applicants contended that under the last paragraph of Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code, bearing in mind the three circumstances previously mentioned, the penalty imposable upon them, even if found guilty, could only be prisión mayor, in its minimum and medium periods, and a fine not exceeding 700 pesos; that their crime, therefore, could not be a capital one, so that, even if the evidence were strong, they were entitled to bail.

The respondent judge, in view of the State’s opposition to the bail petition, proceeded to hear the evidence of the State in support thereof, and, after considering said evidence, on November 8, 1963 denied the application for bail. Thereupon, the accused resorted to this Court, alleging abuse of discretion, and reiterating their position in the court below.

This proceeding not being an appeal from the order denying bail, we need not pass upon the pronouncement of the court below that the evidence of guilt is strong. That conclusion, based upon the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence, can not be deemed to be capricious and whimsical so as to justify our issuing a writ of certiorari, in the absence of other circumstances to the effect, and none are here urged.

We will, therefore, confine ourselves to considering the legal point raised by the petitioners, i.e., whether the crime committed by them can be held non-capital, in view of the special features alleged by said petitioners, to wit, that the person kidnapped was (a) voluntarily released by his captors; (b) that he was voluntarily released within 24 hours from the kidnapping; and (c) that no ransom was actually paid for his release, although ransom had been demanded.

The resolution of the question depends upon the interpretation to be given to Articles 267 and 268 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 18 and 1084. These articles provide that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 or reclusión perpetua to death:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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 1 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. (As amended by Republic Act No. 18 and 1084).

ART. 268. Slight illegal detention. — The penalty of reclusión temporal shall be imposed upon any private individual who shall commit the crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance of any of circumstances enumerated therein.

The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.

If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the commencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos. (As amended by Republic Act No. 18) (Sept. 25, 1946)"

Petitioners vigorously argue that the last paragraph of Article 268 applies not only to slight illegal detention but also to kidnapping and serious illegal detention penalized by Article 267; so that even if the detention was made for the purpose of extorting ransom, the penalty would be reduced to prisión mayor and fine if the requisites of Article 268, last paragraph, do obtain. Upon the other hand, the prosecution sustains the proposition that under the last paragraph of Article 267, all that is required for the imposition of the death penalty is that (a) there be kidnapping, and (b) that the kidnapping be resorted to for the purpose of extorting ransom, since said last paragraph explicitly provides that punishment "even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned (i.e., in the preceding paragraphs of Article 267) were present in the commission of the offense", and that the third paragraph of Article 268 modifies only slight illegal detentions under that article and does not apply to acts described in Article 267.

Consideration of the legislative history of these articles will show that the legal thesis propounded by the petitioners in this case is untenable, and that the view of the prosecution was correct. As originally enacted in 1928, the Revised Penal Code (Act 3815 of the pre-Commonwealth Philippine Legislature) provided, in its Articles 267 and 268, the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ART. 267. Detención ilegal grave. — Sera castigado con la pena de reclusion temporal el particular que secuestrare o encerrare a otro o en cualquier forma le privare de libertad:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Si el encierro o detención hubiere durado mas de veinte dias.

2. Si se hubiere ejecutado con simulación de autoridad p