Asistio v. San Diego
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Luis Asistio and several others were accused of kidnapping for ransom, a crime defined under the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18. The information alleged that the accused, some of whom were public officers, conspired to kidnap Chua Pao alias "So Na" for the purpose of extorting P20,000.00. The commission of the crime was allegedly attended by aggravating circumstances, including the abuse of public position by two of the accused, the use of armed men, the employment of craft and fraud, the use of motor vehicles, and the augmentation of the wrong done. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners applied for bail in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch IX, arguing that the evidence of guilt was not strong because the offended party, Chua Pao, was voluntarily released within 24 hours, without ransom being paid, which, under the last paragraph of Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code, would reduce the imposable penalty to prision mayor. The respondent judge, after hearing the State's evidence in opposition, denied the application for bail on November 8, 1963, concluding that the evidence of guilt was strong. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a verified petition for certiorari and habeas corpus with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek annulment of the orders denying them bail and pray that this Court grant them bail. They contend that the crime charged, considering the voluntary release within 24 hours without ransom, should be classified as slight illegal detention under Article 268, making it a bailable offense. The core of their argument hinges on the interpretation that the mitigating circumstances in the last paragraph of Article 268, specifically voluntary release within three days without ransom, should apply even to kidnapping for ransom under Article 267. The Supreme Court, however, is asked to determine whether the crime charged is capital, and if the lower court abused its discretion in denying bail based on its finding of strong evidence of guilt.
Issue(s)
Whether the mitigating circumstances provided in the third paragraph of Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code (slight illegal detention) are applicable to the crime of kidnapping for ransom under the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the crime for which the petitioners are accused is a capital offense, thus affecting their right to bail.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and habeas corpus. It held that the crime of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 is a capital offense, and the mitigating circumstances in Article 268 are not applicable to it. Since the respondent judge found the evidence of guilt to be strong after due hearing, the denial of bail was not an abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the mitigating circumstances provided in the third paragraph of Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code are not applicable to the crime of kidnapping for ransom under the last paragraph of Article 267. The Court meticulously examined the legislative history of these articles, tracing their origins from the original Revised Penal Code of 1928. It noted that Article 267 originally dealt with serious illegal detention based on circumstances, while Article 268 dealt with slight illegal detention, including a provision for reduced penalty upon early voluntary release. The Court emphasized that the introduction of kidnapping for ransom as a distinct offense with a heavier penalty (reclusion perpetua to death) was done through Republic Act No. 18, which amended Article 267 by adding a last paragraph. This amendment did not alter Article 268, nor did it indicate an intention to make the mitigating provisions of Article 268 applicable to the new offense in Article 267. The Court reasoned that applying these mitigating circumstances to kidnapping for ransom would result in an illogical reduction of penalty (three degrees) compared to its application to slight illegal detention (one degree), and that the legislative intent was to impose a severe penalty for kidnapping for ransom to deter its commission. On Issue 2: Based on the ruling that the crime charged is kidnapping for ransom under Article 267, which is a capital offense, the Court affirmed that the petitioners are not entitled to bail as a matter of right if the evidence of guilt is strong. The Court noted that the respondent judge, after conducting a hearing on the bail application, found the evidence of guilt to be strong. The Supreme Court, in a petition for certiorari, will not interfere with such a finding unless it is shown to be capricious and whimsical, which was not demonstrated by the petitioners. Therefore, the denial of bail by the lower court was sustained.
Main Doctrine
The Court definitively ruled that the provisions for mitigating penalties in Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code, specifically the third paragraph concerning voluntary release within three days without attaining the intended purpose, do not apply to the crime of kidnapping for ransom defined in the last paragraph of Article 267. This interpretation is based on the legislative history, which shows that kidnapping for ransom was established as a distinct and more serious offense, and the mitigating circumstances for slight illegal detention were not intended to reduce the penalty for this graver crime. Consequently, even if the victim was released within 24 hours and no ransom was paid, the offense remains kidnapping for ransom, a capital offense, and bail may be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong.