ANNOTATION

ILLEGAL DETENTION
By
ALICIA GONZALEZ-DECANO*
___________________
1. Preliminary Statement, p. 695
2. The Laws, p. 695
A. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, p. 695
B. Slight Illegal Detention (Art. 268), p. 696
C. Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269), p. 696
3. Discussion, p. 696
A. Illegal Detention Distinguished from Arbitrary Detention, p.
696
B. Meaning of Ransom, p. 697
C. Unlawful arrest distinguished from other illegal detention,
p. 698
D. Article 269 distinguished from Article 125, p. 698
4. Relevant Cases, p. 698

___________________
_______________
** Retired Judge, Professorial Lecturer IV and Consultant (Law and
Political Science Cluster, UST Graduate School) and Dean, College of Law &
Law Professor, Pan Pacific University North Philippines (PUNP), Urdaneta
City.
695

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 17, 2012

Illegal Detention

695

1. Preliminary Statement
Kidnapping or Illegal Detention is again on the rise. Victims
are either rich Filipinos or the Chinese-Filipino children whose
parents are generally presumed to be capable of giving ransom
for their children. It is on this score that the writer is moved to
write on kidnapping or Illegal Detention.
By the way, Illegal Detention is classified into (1)
kidnapping and serious illegal detention provided in Art. 267 of
the Revised Penal Code, (2) Slight Illegal Detention under Art.
268, and (3) Unlawful arrest under Article 269.
2. The Laws
A. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

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 five 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, 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.
696

69
6

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Illegal Detention

B. Slight Illegal Detention (Art. 268)

The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any
private individual who shall commit the crimes described in the
next preceding article without the attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by any one who shall
furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so
kidnapped or detained within three days from the
commencement of the detention, without having attained the
purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal
proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in
its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding
seven hundred pesos.
C. Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269)
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case other
than those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground
therefore, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of
delivering him to the proper authority.

 3. Discussion
A.
Illegal Detention Distinguished from Arbitrary
Detention
In illegal detention, the offender is a private individual
whereas in arbitrary detention the offender is a public officer.
Illegal detention is a crime against personal liberty and
security; arbitrary detention is a crime against the fundamental
law of the state. (Reyes, Criminal Law, Vol. II, 1977, p. 511)
697

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 17, 2012

Illegal Detention

697

B. Meaning of Ransom
In the case of People vs. Akiran, et al., 18 SCRA 239 [1966],
the accused maintained that they should not be convicted of
kidnapping, because the intention was at most merely to compel
the victim to fulfill his promise of defraying the hospital
expenses of one Hayam. It was held that even if the purpose is
to compel the alleged payment, under Art. 267 of the Penal
Code the offense is still kidnapping for ransom.
Under American rulings ransom is money, price, or
consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured
person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity
(Corpuz Juris Secundum, 458 etc.) now since the accused
demanded and received money from captivity, whatever other
motive may have impelled him to do so, the money is still
ransom under the law. (ibid.)
The intention to deprive the victim of his liberty or purpose
of extorting ransom on the part of the accused is essential in the
crime of kidnapping. (Reyes, Vol. II, Criminal Law, p. 525)
Illegal Detention may consist not only in placing a person in
an enclosure but also in detaining him or depriving him in any
manner of his liberty. (Reyes, Vol. II, Criminal Law, p. 507)
The essential element or act which makes the offense of
kidnapping is the deprivation of an offended partys liberty
under any of the four instances enumerated in Article 267,
paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, the illegal detention of

the victim for more than five days being one of such instances
(People vs. Suarez, et al., 82 Phil. 484, cited by Reyes, supra).
Conspiracy to extort ransom makes all the conspirators liable
under the second paragraph of Article 267 including those who
did not take any part of the money. (Reyes, supra)
698

69
8

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Illegal Detention

There is no unlawful arrest if the arrest is authorized by a

warrant issued by the court.
C. Unlawful arrest distinguished from other illegal
detention
If the purpose of locking up or detaining the victim is to
deliver him to the proper authorities, and it develops that the
detention is unlawful, then the offense committed is unlawful
arrest,
In any other case, the detention will render the culprit liable
for other illegal detention. (Reyes, supra)
D. Article 269 distinguished from Article 125
1. Under Article 269, the detention is not authorized by law
while in article 125, crime of delay in the delivery of detained
persons to the proper judicial authority, the detention is for some
legal ground; in article 269, the detention is not authorized by
law.
2. Under Article 125, the crime is committed by failing to
deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within a
certain period of time; in unlawful arrest, it is committed by
making an arrest not authorized by law.
4. Relevant Cases
The following cases are illustrative of kidnapping and Illegal
Detention:
1. People vs. Baldoge, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24,
2003, 396 SCRA 31, discusses kidnapping penalized by Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Supreme Court issued the following pronouncements

among others:
699

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 17, 2012

Illegal Detention

699

x x x The Court shall now delve into and resolve the issue of what
crime or crimes accused-appellant is guilty of. The trial court convicted
accused-appellant of two separate crimes and not the special complex
crime of kidnapping with murder or homicide under the last paragraph of
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659. The
trial court is not correct. There is no evidence that Jorge was kidnapped
or detained first by accused-appellant and Bermas before he was killed.
The last paragraph of Article 267 of the Code is applicable only if
kidnapping or serious illegal detention is committed and the victim is
killed or dies as a consequence of the kidnapping or serious illegal
detention. x x x

The Supreme Court continued:

x x x In this case, Julie a minor, was not locked up. However, she
was seized and taken from her house through force and dragged to the
mountain. Since then, she was restrained of her liberty by and kept under
the control of accused-appellant and Bermas. She was prevented from
going back home for a period of about six days. Patently then, accusedappellant is guilty of kidnapping and illegally detaining Julie. The crime
was aggravated by dwelling because Julie was taken from their house by
accused-appellant and Bermas. However, dwelling was not alleged in the
information as an aggravating circumstance as required by Section 9,
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which reads:
Section 9. Designation of the offense The complaint or information
shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts
or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statue
punishing it. Even if dwelling is proven but is not alleged in the
Information as an aggravating circumstance, the same will not serve to
aggravate the penalty.

2. People vs. Silongan, G.R. No. 137182, April 24, 2003,

401 SCRA 459, speaks among others, of the elements of the
crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention as defined and
penalized in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
Said the Supreme Court:
700

70
0

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Illegal Detention

x x x The essence of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal

detention x x x is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty coupled
with proof beyond reasonable doubt of an intent of the accused to effect
the same. It is thus essential that the following be established by the
prosecution: (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 four circumstances enumerated in the Article
267 be present. But if the kidnapping was done for the purpose of
extorting ransom, the fourth element is no longer necessary.

The Supreme Court further ruled:

x x x Likewise, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable
doubt that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from Alexander, as to warrant the mandatory imposition of the
death penalty. For the crime to be committed, at least one overt act of
demanding ransom must be made. It is not necessary that there be actual
payment by ransom, because what the new law requires, is merely the
existence of the purpose of demanding ransom. In this case, the records
are replete with instances when the kidnappers demanded ransom from
the victim. x x x

3. People vs. Pagalasan, G.R. Nos. 131926 & 138991, June

18, 2003, 404 SCRA 275, dwells on the elements of kidnapping,
the meaning of ransom and slight illegal detention among
others.
The Supreme Court postulated:
x x x For the accused to be convicted of kidnapping, the prosecution
is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the
crime, namely: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or
detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the
act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal and (d) in the commission
of the offense any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (2) it is committed
by simulating public authority; (3) any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are
made; or (4) the
701

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 17, 2012

701

Illegal Detention
person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public officer. x x
x

Articulating further, the Supreme Court continued:

x x x If the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is a
minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim
is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom,
the duration of his detention is immaterial.

The essential elements for this crime is the deprivation of

liberty of the victim under any of the above-mentioned
circumstances coupled with indubitable proof of intent of the
accused to effect the same. There must be a purposeful or
knowing action by the accused to forcibly restrain the victim
coupled with intent. x x x
In addition, the Supreme Court explained the meaning of
ransom:
x x x Ransom is a sum of money or other thing of value, price, or
consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a kidnapped or
detained person, a payment that releases from captivity. It may include
benefits not necessarily pecuniary which may accrue to the kidnappers or
a third person as a condition for the release of the victim. x x x

The Highest
pronouncements:

Tribunal

further

issued

the

following

x x x Slight Illegal detention is necessarily included in kidnapping.

The prosecution may have failed to prove that the appellant and his coconspirators intended to extort ransom for Georges release; however, as
a matter of substantive law, the appellant may be held guilty of two
separate crimes, although he and his co-conspirators kidnapped George
and Christopher on the same occasion and from the same situs. As a
matter of procedural law, the appellant may be convicted of slight illegal
detention under the Information of kidnapping for ransom as the former is
necessarily included in the latter crime.
702

702

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Illegal Detention
Slight Illegal Detention has the following essential elements: (1) that
the offender is a private individual; (2) that he kidnaps or detains another,
or in any manner deprive him of his liberty; (3) that the act of kidnapping
or detention is illegal; (4) that the crime is committed without the
attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in article 267. x x x

5. People vs. Bisda, G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003, 406

SCRA 454 explains among others, the meaning of female in

par. 1 (4) of article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and the
essence of kidnapping.
The Supreme Court held:
x x x The word female in par. 1 (4) of Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code refers to the gender of the victim and not of the offender.

It likewise reiterated the elements of kidnapping or Serious

Illegal Detention as enunciated earlier in People vs. Pagalasan,
supra.
The Supreme Court continued:
x x x The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation
of the victims liberty under any of the above-mentioned circumstances
(number 3 case hereof) coupled with indubitable proof of intent of the
accused to effect the same. x x x

It was likewise ruled:

x x x The victims lack of consent is also a fundamental element of
kidnapping. The involuntariness of the seizure and detention is the very
essence of the crime. The general rule is that the prosecution is burdened
to prove the lack of consent on the part of the victim. However, where the
victim is a minor especially if she is only five years old, lack of consent is
presumed. She incompetent to assent to seizure and illegal detention. x x
x The appellants can not rely on Angelas initial willingness to go along
with them to the restaurant. As Judge Shepherd stated in State vs.
Chisenhall: It is clear that the consent of the child, obtained by means of
persuasion, is no defense since the result of such persuasion is just as
great an
703

VOL. 680, SEPTEMBER 17, 2012

703
Illegal Detention
evil as if it had been accomplished by other means. A kidnapper should
not be rewarded with an acquittal simply because she is ingenious enough
to conceal her true motive from her victim until she is able to transport
the latter to another place. x x x

6. Astorga vs. People, G.R. No. 154130, October 1, 2003,

deals among others with the prevailing jurisprudence on
kidnapping and illegal detention and the elements of arbitrary
Detention, among others.
The Supreme Court decreed:
x x x The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal
detention is that the curtailment of the victims liberty need not involve
any physical restraint upon the victims person. If the acts and actuations

of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim, sufficient
to paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his
own actions and movements in accordance with the wishes of the
accused, then the victim is, for all intents and purposes, detained against
his will. x x x

The Highest Tribunal likewise presented the elements of

Arbitrary Detention in this wise:
Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee
who, without legal grounds detains a person. The elements of the crime
are: (1) That the offender is a public officer or employee; (2) that he
detains a person; and (3) that the detention is without legal grounds. x x
x

7. People vs. Pickrell, G.R. No. 120409, 414 SCRA 19, 414
SCRA 19, speaks among others of kidnapping for ransom,
reiterates the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention which were already discussed in the cases of People
vs. Pagalasan, supra and People vs. Bisda, supra, and the
involuntariness of the seizure and detention as the very essence
of the crime.
Said the Supreme Court:
704

70
4

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Illegal Detention

x x x The involuntariness of the seizure and detention is the very

essence of the crime. (This was also articulated in People vs. Bisda,
supra). The victims lack of consent is also a fundamental element of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The involuntariness of the
seizure and detention is the very essence of the crime. Although the
victim may have inceptually consented to go with the offender to a place
but the victim is thereafter prevented, with the use of force, from leaving
the place where he was brought to with his consent and is detained
against his will, the offender is still guilty of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention. x x x

8. People vs. Paingin, G.R. No. 148228, December 4, 2003,

417 SCRA 95, highlights among others the indubitable proof of
the actual intent of the malefactor. It likewise reemphasized the
elements of kidnapping as already discussed in the earlier cases
enumerated.

The Supreme Court expounded:

x x x The primary element of the crime of kidnapping is actual
confinement, detention and restraint of the victim. There must be a
showing of actual confinement or restriction of the victim, and that such
deprivation was the intention of the malefactor. An accused is liable for
kidnapping when the evidence adequately proves that he forcefully
transported, locked up or restrained the victim. There must exist
indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactor was to deprive
the victim of his liberty. The restraint of liberty must not arise merely as
an incident to the commission of another offense that the offender
primarily intended to commit. For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary
to place the victim in an enclosed place. It is sufficient to detain or
deprive him in any manner of his liberty.

In kidnapping what is important is to determine and prove

the fact of seizure, and the subsequent disappearance of the
victim will not exonerate an accused from prosecution therefore.
Otherwise, kidnappers can easily avoid punishment by the
simple expedient of disposing of their victims bodies.
Appellants motive is not even relevant. Motive is not an
element of the crime of kidnapping. x x x
o0o
Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.