G.R. Nos. 26853-26855, September 10, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. HIPOLITO UNDIANA, et al.

Ponente: AVANCEÑA, C.J.

FACTS

On the night of May 6, 1925, appellants Gregorio Garcia, Hipolito Undiana, Pedro Cabunut, Arcadio Cabrera, Salvador Garcia, Melecio Cabalateja, and Benito Supnet went to the house of Maria Aragones. Under the pretext of asking for supper, some of them entered the house, assaulted Maria’s parents (Severino Aragones and Pilar Quejas), and forcibly seized Maria. They threw her out of the window, dragged her towards the woods, and attacked Benigno de la Cruz and Pablo Lasam when they responded to Maria’s cries for help. Pablo Lasam eventually managed to wrest a bolo from Pedro Cabunut and rescue Maria. Three separate complaints were filed: two for frustrated abduction with violence (against all appellants except the initially at-large Arcadio Cabrera, and later against him) and one for physical injuries (against Gregorio Garcia and Hipolito Undiana for wounding Benigno de la Cruz). The trial court, finding no evidence of lewd designs, convicted the appellants of the consummated crime of illegal detention under Article 481 of the Penal Code for the abduction-related acts, and of physical injuries for the assault on Benigno de la Cruz.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of illegal detention under a complaint for frustrated abduction.
2. Whether paragraph 3 (mitigating provision) of Article 481 of the Penal Code is applicable.
3. Whether the penalty imposed for the illegal detention was correct, considering the complaint was for frustrated abduction.

RULING

1. No, the trial court did not err in convicting for illegal detention. Following the precedent in *People vs. Crisostomo*, a conviction for illegal detention under Article 481 is proper under a complaint for abduction with violence under Article 445 when lewd designs are not proven. The acts constituting abduction (taking a woman by force) inherently constitute illegal detention.
2. No, paragraph 3 of Article 481 is not applicable. This paragraph applies only if the offender voluntarily releases the detained person within three days, demonstrating repentance. Here, Maria Aragones was rescued by Pablo Lasam against the appellants’ resistance, not released voluntarily by them. The mere fact that the detention lasted less than three days is irrelevant if the release was not voluntary.
3. No, the penalty was incorrect in degree. The trial court erred in imposing the penalty for consummated illegal detention. Since the complaint alleged only frustrated abduction (the appellants performed all acts but did not succeed due to external intervention), the corresponding conviction should be for frustrated illegal detention. The penalty is accordingly reduced.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Supreme Court MODIFIED the trial court’s judgment.
* For the acts related to Maria Aragones, appellants are found guilty of frustrated illegal detention. Considering the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, the penalty is set at four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of *prision correccional*.
* The convictions for physical injuries against Gregorio Garcia and Hipolito Undiana are AFFIRMED.
Costs against appellants.

SEPARATE OPINION:
JOHNS, J., dissenting: Justice Johns dissented, viewing the incident as a foolish attempt by Pedro Cabunut to marry Maria Aragones against her parents’ wishes, without lewd intent or injury to Maria. He argued that the appellants’ one-year confinement pending appeal was sufficient punishment and voted for their discharge.