1. Offender is a private individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
a. The kidnapping lasts for 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; or
d. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
If there is any crime under Title IX which has no corresponding provision with crimes under Title II, then, the offender may be a public officer or a private person. If there is a corresponding crime under Title II, the offender under Title IX for such similar crime is a private person.
When a public officer conspires with a private person in the commission of any of the crimes under Title IX, the crime is also one committed under this title and not under Title II.
Illustration:
If a private person commits the crime of kidnapping or serious illegal detention, even though a public officer conspires therein, the crime cannot be arbitrary detention. As far as that public officer is concerned, the crime is also illegal detention.
In the actual essence of the crime, when one says kidnapping, this connotes the idea of transporting the offended party from one place to another. When you think illegal detention, it connotes the idea that one is restrained of his liberty without necessarily transporting him from one place to another.
The crime of kidnapping is committed if the purpose of the offender is to extort ransom either from the victim or from any other person. But if a person is transported not for ransom, the crime can be illegal detention. Usually, the offended party is brought to a place other than his own, to detain him there.
When one thinks of kidnapping, it is not only that of transporting one person from one place to another. One also has to think of the criminal intent.
Forcible abduction -- If a woman is transported from one place to another by virtue of restraining her of her liberty, and that act is coupled with lewd designs.
Serious illegal detention – If a woman is transported just to restrain her of her liberty.
There is no lewd design or lewd intent.
Grave coercion – If a woman is carried away just to break her will, to compel her to agree to the demand or request by the offender.
In a decided case, a suitor, who cannot get a favorable reply from a woman, invited the woman to ride with him, purportedly to take home the woman from class. But while the woman is in his car, he drove the woman to a far place and told the woman to marry him. On the way, the offender had repeatedly touched the private parts of the woman. It was held that the act of the offender of touching the private parts of the woman could not be considered as lewd designs because he was willing to marry the offended party. The Supreme Court ruled that when it is a suitor who could possibly marry the woman, merely kissing the woman or touching her private parts to “compel” her to agree to the marriage, such cannot be characterized as lewd design. It is considered merely as the
“passion of a lover”. But if the man is already married, you cannot consider that as legitimate but immoral and definitely amounts to lewd design.
If a woman is carried against her will but without lewd design on the part of the offender, the crime is grave coercion.
Illustration:
Tom Cruz invited Nicole Chizmacks for a snack. They drove along Roxas Boulevard, along the Coastal Road and to Cavite. The woman was already crying and wanted to be brought home. Tom imposed the condition that Nicole should first marry him. Nicole found this as, simply, a mission impossible. The crime committed in this case is grave coercion. But if after they drove to Cavite, the suitor placed the woman in a house and would not let her out until she agrees to marry him, the crime would be serious illegal detention.
If the victim is a woman or a public officer, the detention is always serious – no matter how short the period of detention is.
Circumstances which make illegal detention serious
(1) When the illegal detention lasted for three days, regardless of who the offended party is;
(2) When the offended party is a female, even if the detention lasted only for minutes;
(3) If the offended party is a minor or a public officer, no matter how long or how short the detention is;
(4) When threats to kill are made or serious physical injuries have been inflicted; and (5) If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
Distinction between illegal detention and arbitrary detention
Illegal detention is committed by a private person who kidnaps, detains, or otherwise deprives another of his liberty.
Arbitrary detention is committed by a public officer who detains a person without legal grounds.
The penalty for kidnapping is higher than for forcible abduction. This is wrong because if the offender knew about this, he would perform lascivious acts upon the woman and be charged only for forcible abduction instead of kidnapping or illegal detention. He thereby benefits from this absurdity, which arose when Congress amended Article 267, increasing the penalty thereof, without amending Article 342 on forcible abduction.
Article 267 has been modified by Republic Act No. 7659 in the following respects:
(1) Illegal detention becomes serious when it shall have lasted for more than three days, instead of five days as originally provided;
(2) In paragraph 4, if the person kidnapped or detained was a minor and the offender was anyone of the parents, the latter has been expressly excluded from the provision. The liability of the parent is provided for in the last paragraph of Article 271;
(3) A paragraph was added to Article 267, which states:
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.
This amendment brings about a composite crime of kidnapping with homicide when it is the victim of the kidnapping who was killed, or dies as a consequence of the detention and, thus, only one penalty is imposed which is death.
Article 48, on complex crimes, does not govern in this case. But Article 48 will govern if any other person is killed aside, because the provision specifically refers to “victim”.
Accordingly, the rulings in cases of People v. Parulan, People v. Ging Sam, and other similar cases where the accused were convicted for the complex crimes of kidnapping with murder have become academic.
In the composite crime of kidnapping with homicide, the term “homicide” is used in the generic sense and, thus, covers all forms of killing whether in the nature of murder or otherwise. It does not matter whether the purpose of the kidnapping was to kill the victim or not, as long as the victim was killed, or died as a consequence of the kidnapping or detention. There is no more separate crime of kidnapping and murder if the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of killing her.
If the victim was raped, this brings about the composite crime of kidnapping with rape.
Being a composite crime, not a complex crime, the same is regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact the law punishes such acts with only a single penalty. In a way, the amendment depreciated the seriousness of the rape because no matter how many times the victim was raped, there will only be one kidnapping with rape. This would not be the consequence if rape were a separate crime from kidnapping because each act of rape would be a distinct count.
However for the crime to be kidnapping with rape, the offender should not have taken the victim with lewd designs as otherwise the crime would be forcible abduction; and if the victim was raped, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape would be committed. If the taking was forcible abduction, and the woman was raped several times, there would only be one crime of forcible abduction with rape, and each of the other rapes would constitute distinct counts of rape. This was the ruling in the case of People v. Bacalso.
In People v. Lactao, decided on October 29, 1993, the Supreme Court stressed that the crime is serious illegal detention if the purpose was to deprive the offended party of her liberty. And if in the course of the illegal detention, the offended party was raped, a separate crime of rape would be committed. This is so because there is no complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape since the illegal detention was not a necessary means to the commission of rape.
In People v. Bernal, 131 SCRA 1, the appellants were held guilty of separate crimes of serious illegal detention and of multiple rapes. With the amendment by Republic Act No.
7659 making rape a qualifying circumstance in the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the jurisprudence is superseded to the effect that the rape should be a distinct crime. Article 48 on complex crimes may not apply when serious illegal detention and rape are committed by the same offender. The offender will be charged for the composite crime of serious illegal detention with rape as a single indivisible offense, regardless of the number of times that the victim was raped.
Also, when the victim of the kidnapping and serious illegal detention was subjected to torture and sustained physical injuries, a composite crime of kidnapping with physical injuries is committed.