View full case

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SIONGCO Y DELA CRUZ

FACTS:

The case involves the review of the guilty verdict rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against appellants Antonio Siongco and Allan Bonsol. The facts show that on December 27, 1998, 11-year-old Nikko Satimbre was induced by Siongco to board a bus bound for Pilar, Bataan, with the promise of getting a "Gameboy." Nikko was brought to various locations in Bataan and Metro Manila by Siongco and his accomplices. Nikko's mother, Elvira, discovered that her son was missing and reported him missing to the police. The captors demanded a ransom of P400,000.00, which Elvira haggled down to P300,000.00. Eventually, Elvira reported the kidnapping to the police. On December 31, 1998, with the assistance of the Philippine Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF), Elvira attempted to exchange the ransom money at Genesis Bus Station in Pasay City. Enriquez was arrested during the exchange. Siongco was later arrested in Pateros, where Nikko was also rescued. The investigations led to the arrest of appellant Bonsol and other cohorts. Appellants Siongco and Bonsol, together with Enriquez, Hayco, Boton, and a John Doe, were charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention. After trial, the RTC convicted appellants Siongco, Bonsol, Enriquez, and Hayco, sentenced them to death, and ordered them to indemnify the victim and his mother. Boton was acquitted. The case was reviewed by the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and increased the amount of damages. Only appellants Siongco and Bonsol appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Whether the deprivation of liberty element was present even if the victim voluntarily went with the accused.

  3. Whether or not the appellant conspired with others in kidnapping and illegally detaining the victim.

  4. Whether or not the appellant was deprived of their right to an independent and competent counsel.

  5. Whether civil indemnity is proper.

  6. Whether an increase in the award of moral damages is warranted.

  7. Whether exemplary damages should be awarded.

RULING:

  1. The Court affirmed the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused-appellants were private individuals who, together with their cohorts, took the victim out of his hometown and brought him to Manila where ransom demands were made. The prosecution established the elements of the crime as defined under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

  2. The Court held that the deprivation of liberty element was present even if the victim voluntarily went with the accused. The deprivation required by Article 267 includes not only imprisonment but also the deprivation of liberty in any form and for any length of time. In this case, although the victim was free to move around, he was under the control of his captors who left him in unfamiliar places and did not allow him to leave until they returned. Because of his young age and unfamiliarity with the area, he was effectively deprived of his liberty.

  3. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for conspiracy in kidnapping and illegal detention. The Court held that the appellant played a crucial role in the plan to kidnap and extort ransom from the victim. The act of one conspirator is the act of all, and they shall be held equally liable for the crime. The appellant's participation was necessary for the accomplishment of the offense.

  4. The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant was not deprived of their right to counsel. The court appointed a counsel de oficio during the absence of the appellant's regular counsel. The choice of counsel by the accused in a criminal prosecution is not absolute, and the court has the authority to appoint a competent and independent counsel to ensure the progress of the trial. The conflict of defense between the appellant and their co-accused does not affect the appointment of counsel or the right to a fair trial.

  5. The court affirms the award of civil indemnity, but modifies the amount to P50,000.00

  6. The court increases the award of moral damages from P100,000.00 to P200,000.00

  7. The court upholds the award of exemplary damages amounting to P100,000.00

PRINCIPLES:

  • Elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention: (a) 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 person kidnapped or detained, is a minor, a female, or a public officer. The duration of detention becomes immaterial if the victim is a minor or if the purpose is to extort ransom.

  • Deprivation of liberty means not only imprisonment but also any form of restriction or impediment to the victim's liberty to move. The victim does not need to be physically restrained or confined; it is enough that he is under the control of the accused.

  • In kidnapping, the lack of consent of the victim is a fundamental element. Lack of consent is presumed when the victim is a minor.

  • In conspiracy, the act of one conspirator is the act of all, and they shall be held equally liable for the crime.

  • The choice of counsel by the accused in a criminal prosecution is not absolute. The court can appoint a competent and independent counsel in the absence of the accused's counsel de parte.

  • The conflict of defense between co-accused does not affect the appointment of counsel or the right to a fair trial.

  • Civil indemnity is proper in cases of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

  • The amount of civil indemnity may be modified by the court.

  • Moral damages may be awarded depending on the circumstances of the case.

  • The court has discretion to increase or decrease the amount of moral damages awarded.

  • Exemplary damages may be awarded as a form of example or correction.