How is this committed?

1. The offender is a private individual

2. He kidnaps/detains another person, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty
3. The act of detention/kidnapping must be illegal
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
a. The kidnapping/detention lasts more than 3 days
b. It is committed simulating public authority
c. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or threats to
kill him are made
d. The person kidnapped/detained is a minor, a female or a public officer

What is kidnapping?
Kidnapping refers to the act of forcible transportation or abduction of individuals against their will.

To kidnap is to forcibly take a person from where he has a right to be and bring him somewhere else
against their will.

Examples: place of work, residence, rest and recreation, school, street, park, or public place

What is serious illegal detention?

The essence of serious illegal detention is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with
the indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect such deprivation—it is enough that the victim
is restrained from going home. It contemplates situations where the victim is restricted or impeded in
one’s liberty to move.

ELEMENT #1: OFFENDER

Who are the offenders under Article 267?
GR: The law specifies that the offender must be a private individual, not public officers.
If the offender is a public officer or employee, the crime committed is arbitrary detention under
Article 124 of the RPC.

XPN: If the offender is a public officer who acted in private capacity or someone who does not
have an authority to detain persons.

ELEMENT #2: KIDNAPS, DETAINS, DEPRIVES LIBERTY

When is a person detained?
A person is detained when he is illegally deprived of his liberty.
There is detention when a person is placed in confinement or there is restraint on his liberty.

When is there deprivation of liberty?

Two things make up ‘deprivation of liberty’: (a) actual or physical confinement; or (b) restrictions
(not necessarily physical) place upon the detainee

‘Liberty’ as contemplated by this provision is not restricted to physical locomotion; moral

compulsion may also be considered a form of deprivation of liberty like threatening a person.

The essence of detention is that the person is not allowed to leave of his own volition and his liberty
is curtailed.

Must there be actual restraint?

No, actual restraint is not necessary. The curtailment of the victim’s liberty need not involve any
physical restraint upon the victim’s person.

Hence, for kidnapping, it is not necessary that the offender kept the victim in an enclosure or treated
him harshly.

ELEMENT #3: DETENTION OR KIDNAPPING IS ILLEGAL

When is detention illegal?
Detention is illegal when it is not ordered by a competent authority or not permitted by law.

Examples:
1) Arrest Warrant
2) Commitment of a person to psychiatric or mental institution
3) Schools detaining students during school hours

Is it essential that there be deprivation of liberty?

Yes, it is essential that there be actual confinement or restriction of the person of the offended party.

The essence of detention is that the person is not allowed to leave of his own volition and his liberty
is curtailed.

Must intent to deprive liberty be proven?

Yes, the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of the latter’s liberty needs to be established by
indubitable proof.

ELEMENT #4: ATTENDED BY CIRCUMSTANCES

What are the rules when the kidnapping (a) lasts for more than 3 days?
GR: Detention or kidnapping must last for more than 3 days.
XPN: If the victim is minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial (People vs. Fabro).

What is (b) simulating public authority?

Simulating public authority refers to the act of falsely making it appear that the act of forcible
transportation was done by public authorities or law enforcers. Otherwise stated, the offenders falsely
held themselves out as public authority figures when they abducted the victim.

What is (c) serious physical injuries and threats to kill him?

Serious physical injuries contemplated herein are bodily harm or wounds inflicted on the victim that
would constitute the crime of serious physical injuries under Article 263.
Article 263 contemplates the ff injuries:
1. Insanity, imbecility, impotency or complete blindness
2. Loss of the senses (i.e: speech, hearing, smell), loss of limbs (i.e.: hand, foot, arm or
leg), partial blindness (loss of only one eye); permanent incapacity for work
3. Deformity or the loss of another part of the body; Loss of the USE of any other part
of the body; incapacity for labor for more than 90 days
4. Illness or incapacity from labor for more than 30 days

What is (d) minor, female or a public officer?

a. Minor – persons who are below 18 years of age; Also includes the intention to deprive the parents
with the custody of the child (People v. Fabro).
b. Female -
c. Public Officer - any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election, or appointment
by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of
the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as
an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class (Article 203).

What is ransom?
Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured
person that will release him from captivity.

No specific form of ransom is required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as
the ransom is intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim’s freedom. The amount of and
purpose for the ransom is immaterial. (People vs. Mamantak)

Is demand for ransom necessary?

No, actual demand for ransom is not necessary.

It is enough that the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom.

What is specific intent?

Specific Intent is a state of mind which indicates that an offender actively desired certain criminal
consequences. In simpler terms, it is the particular purpose or specific intention in doing the
prohibited act.

Intent to kill in murder, intent to deprive liberty in kidnapping.

Is specific intent synonymous with motive? -- NO.

Motive is the reason which prompts the offender to engage in a particular criminal activity and it is
not an essential element of a crime.

Whereas specific intent determines the crime to be committed and is an essential element of specific
intent crimes like murder or kidnapping.

Distinguish between Arbitrary Detention and Illegal Detention

As to the classification of the crime –
Arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the RPC is a crime against the fundamental law of the
State.

Illegal detention under Article 267 of the RPC is a crime against personal liberty.

As to the offender –
In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer who has an authority to detain a person.

In illegal detention, the offender is generally a private individual. However, if the public officer
do not have an authority to detain a person or if he is acting in a private capacity, then he may
also be an offender in illegal detention.

As to the purpose of commission –

In arbitrary detention, the purpose is to detain a person without any legal ground.

In illegal detention, the purpose is to deprive a person of his liberty.

Distinguish between Illegal Detention and Other Crimes Which Involved Taking Away of a
Person

Article 286. Coercion – where there is no intent to detain or deprive a person of his liberty.
Here, violence, threats, or intimidation is employed to compel someone to do something or to
prevent him from doing something.

Article 342. Forcible Abduction -- where the taking away of the woman against her will
(Forcible Abduction) or by artifice upon a minor girl (Consented Abduction)) was with lewd
designs, which was present at the very moment of the taking away, as it was the purpose thereof.

Distinguish: Complex Crime and Special Complex Crime

Complex Crime under Article 48 is made up of 2 or more crimes being punished in distinctive
provisions of the RPC but alleged in one information either because they were brought about by
a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means for committing the other.

Here, the penalty imposed is the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period.

It has 2 kinds:
1. Compound – Single act constituting 2 or more grave or less grave felonies
Example: People vs. Guillen, throwing a highly explosive grenade which resulted in the
complex crime of murder and frustrated murders.

2. Complex Crime Proper – When an offense is a necessary means for committing the
other
Example: Estafa through falsification of public document

Special Complex Crimes are made up of 2 or more crimes which are considered only as
components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the RPC. They
are treated as a single indivisible offense although comprising of more than one specific crime
and with specific penalty.

Here, the penalty imposed is that which is specifically provided for by law.

Example: Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide

Rules as to Complex Crime Prior to the Amendment of RA 7659

Where the accused kidnapped the victim for the purpose of killing him, and he was in fact killed, the
crime committed was the complex crime of kidnapping with murder under Article 48 of the RPC.

Why? Because the kidnapping was a necessary means of committing the murder.

When the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of killing him but was subsequently killed as an
afterthought, the crime committed was the separate crimes of kidnapping and murder.

People vs Delim:
If the primary and ultimate purpose of the accused is to kill the victim, the incidental deprivation of
the victim’s liberty does not constitute the felony of kidnapping but is merely a preparatory act to the
killing, and hence, is merged into, or absorbed by the killing of the victim.
What if the victim is a minor and the offender is one of the parents?
The crime committed is inducing a minor to abandon his home under Article 271, Par. 2 of the RPC.

Is there a complex crime of illegal detention with rape?

No, not anymore.

Under the last paragraph of Article 267 which was provided by the amendatory law of RA 7659,
when the person kidnapped or illegally detained is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing
acts, the crime committed is the special complex crime of serious illegal detention or kidnapping with
rape.

There is no complex crime of kidnapping with rape because there is no single act which results in 2 or
more grave or less grave felonies. Neither is illegal detention a necessary means for committing rape.

What is the crime committed if the victim is taken with lewd designs?
The crime committed is the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.

If the woman was raped several times, the crimes committed are 1 forcible abduction with rape, and
each of the other counts of rape which constitute separate and distinct offenses.

Provision
Article 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 three 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, except when the accused is any of the parents,
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.

When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped or is subjected to
torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. (As amended by RA No 7659)

PEOPLE vs DIONALDO

FACTS:
Before the Supreme Court is an appeal assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals finding accused-
appellants Armando, Renato, Mariano, and Rodolfo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.

ISSUE: W/N the accused-appellants are guilty of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention.

HELD: No, accused-appellants are not guilty of kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, but
of the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide.

First, the CA and the RTC held that all the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
are present in this case.

Pursuant to Article 267 of the RPC, the elements are:

1. the offender is a private individual; 
2. he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; 
3. the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
4. in the commission of the offense, any of the circumstances stated in the first paragraph of Article
267 is present.

However, when the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, it is
not necessary that one or any of such circumstances be present. 

In this case, it was clearly established that accused-appellants, who were all private individuals, took
the victim Edwin and deprived him of his liberty, which acts were illegal, and for the purpose of
extorting ransom. 

Here, a bloodied Edwin was dragged and pushed inside a dark green Toyota car. That same day, his
brother, Roderick, received a call from someone who was demanding a payment of a ransom money,
who also threatened to kill Edwin if such kidnapping was to be reported to the police.

More specifically, the original ransom amount was P15 Million, but it was reduced to P110,000
because Roderick said that he does not have the amount of P15 Million. So, the kidnappers agreed to
release Edwin for such amount, but his body was later found lifeless. According to the death
certificate, Edwin died of a gunshot wound on the head.

It must be noted that here, although the ransom money was not actually received by the kidnappers,
the accused-appellants were still found guilty of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention by the
lower courts. This is because the demand for ransom consummates the crime of serious illegal
detention or kidnapping since the actual payment or receipt by the kidnappers of the money is
immaterial.

Second, contrary to the findings of the lower courts, the accused-appellants did not merely
commit the crime charged, but that of a special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with
Homicide.

This is in view of the victim's death, which was specifically charged in the Information, and clearly
established during the trial of this case.

In People vs. Ramos, the accused was found guilty of 2 separate crimes of kidnapping for ransom
and murder. On appeal, the Supreme Court modified the ruling and found the accused guilty of the
"special complex crime" of kidnapping for ransom with murder under the last paragraph of Article
267, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.

This amendment introduced the concept of 'special complex crime' of kidnapping with murder or
homicide. 

It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases where the killing was
purposely sought and those where it was merely an afterthought. 

Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention,
regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping
and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes,
but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by
RA No. 7659.

Thus, further taking into account the fact that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom, accused-appellants' conviction must be modified from Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention to the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide.

Finally, there is conspiracy in this case. 

The Court also affirmed the lower court decisions finding that the crime was committed in conspiracy
with one another because the facts clearly show that accused-appellants acted in concert at the time of
the commission of the crime and their acts emanated from the same purpose or common design,
showing unity in its execution.

In a nutshell, this case teaches us that w here the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the
detention, regardless if the killing was purposely sought or a mere afterthought, the crime
committed is the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide.

Hence, the appeal was dismissed.