GR L 34497; (January, 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-34497. January 30, 1975.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENJAMIN ONG y KHO and BIENVENIDO QUINTOS Y SUMALJAG, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The case involves the kidnapping and murder of Henry Chua. The prosecution established that appellants Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido Quintos, conspiring with others, abducted Chua on April 24, 1971. The plan, as revealed by Ong to Patrolman Marciano Roque weeks prior, involved luring Chua under the pretense of settling a gambling debt, kidnapping him to extort ransom, and then killing him. The appellants, using a motor vehicle, took Chua to a secluded area in Caloocan City. There, they forced him to sign a ransom note demanding $50,000 from his family. Despite his compliance, Chua was gagged, tied, and stabbed to death with an icepick. The appellants were subsequently charged with Kidnapping with Murder under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1084 , in relation to Article 248, with several aggravating circumstances.
ISSUE
The principal issue is whether the crime committed is the special complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder, or separate crimes of Kidnapping and Murder, and what are the proper penalties for the appellants.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that the crime committed was not the special complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder. For this complex crime to exist, the killing must be an integral part of the kidnapping or committed on the occasion thereof. The evidence showed the original purpose was extortion, and the murder was a subsequent, distinct act decided upon after the ransom note was obtained. Therefore, the appellants committed two separate crimes: Kidnapping for the purpose of extorting ransom under Article 267(1) and Murder under Article 248. The Court found conspiracy proven, making both appellants liable as principals.
Regarding penalties, for Murder, the presence of the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and use of a motor vehicle, without any mitigating circumstance, warranted the imposition of the death penalty for both appellants. For the Kidnapping, the penalty was reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed an indeterminate sentence for the kidnapping. The death sentences for murder were affirmed, but due to the lack of necessary votes for execution, they were commuted to reclusion perpetua. The Court also affirmed the awards for indemnity and damages.