Title
Asistio vs. San Diego
Case
G.R. No. L-21991
Decision Date
Mar 31, 1964
Petitioners accused of kidnapping for ransom; denied bail as crime deemed capital offense under Article 267, despite victim's release within 24 hours and no ransom paid.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21991)

Facts:

  • Parties Involved: Petitioners Luis Asistio, Pedro Rebullo, Edgardo Pascual, Lorenzo Meneses, Alfredo Caimbon, Benigno Urquico, Federico Zaragoza, and Jose Baello were accused of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18.
  • Crime Alleged: The petitioners, along with others, were accused of kidnapping Chua Pao alias So Na on December 26, 1962, in Quezon City, for the purpose of extorting a ransom of P20,000. The kidnapping involved threats to kill the victim and was allegedly committed with the aid of armed men, motor vehicles, and by taking advantage of public positions held by some of the accused.
  • Key Circumstances: The victim, Chua Pao, was voluntarily released by his captors within 24 hours of his kidnapping, and no ransom was actually paid.
  • Bail Application: The petitioners applied for bail, arguing that the crime, under the circumstances, should be classified as slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by prision mayor (a non-capital offense), making them eligible for bail.
  • Trial Court Decision: The trial court denied the bail application, finding that the evidence of guilt was strong and that the crime was a capital offense punishable by death.

Issue:

  1. Whether the crime committed by the petitioners is a capital offense punishable by death under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, or a non-capital offense under Article 268, given the circumstances of the victim’s release within 24 hours and the non-payment of ransom.
  2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail as a matter of right if the crime is classified as non-capital.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and habeas corpus, upholding the trial court’s denial of bail. The Court ruled that:

  • The crime committed by the petitioners was kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by death, regardless of the circumstances of the victim’s release or the non-payment of ransom.
  • The mitigating circumstances under Article 268 (voluntary release within three days, non-attainment of purpose, and release before criminal proceedings) do not apply to kidnapping for ransom under Article 267.
  • The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the evidence of guilt strong and denying bail.

Ratio:

  1. Interpretation of Articles 267 and 268:

    • Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18, explicitly provides that kidnapping for ransom is punishable by death, even if none of the aggravating circumstances listed in the article are present.
    • Article 268, which provides for a reduced penalty (prision mayor) in cases of slight illegal detention where the victim is voluntarily released within three days, does not apply to kidnapping for ransom under Article 267. The two articles are mutually exclusive.
    • The legislative history of Articles 267 and 268 shows that the third paragraph of Article 268 was never intended to apply to kidnapping for ransom under Article 267. The amendments to Article 267 (introducing kidnapping for ransom as a distinct crime) did not alter the scope of Article 268.
  2. Policy Considerations:

    • The Court emphasized that the law’s intent is to deter kidnapping for ransom by imposing the severest penalty (death) regardless of mitigating circumstances. Applying the mitigating provisions of Article 268 to kidnapping for ransom would undermine this legislative intent.
    • The argument that applying Article 268’s mitigating provisions would encourage kidnappers to release their victims was deemed a policy matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.
  3. Bail Eligibility:

    • Since the crime charged is a capital offense punishable by death, and the trial court found the evidence of guilt strong, the petitioners are not entitled to bail as a matter of right.
  4. Dissenting Opinion:

    • Justice Bautista Angelo dissented, arguing that the mitigating circumstances under Article 268 should apply to kidnapping for ransom. He contended that the legislative intent was to encourage leniency toward victims by reducing penalties for early release, and that the failure to explicitly include kidnapping for ransom in Article 268 was an oversight. He voted to grant bail to the petitioners.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that the crime of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 is a capital offense punishable by death, and the mitigating circumstances under Article 268 do not apply. The trial court’s denial of bail was upheld, and the petition for certiorari and habeas corpus was denied.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.