People vs. Ong

Where the victim is taken from one place to another solely for the purpose of killing him and not for detaining him for any length of time or for obtaining ransom, the crime is murder, not the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. The detention must be a necessary means for the commission of the murder; if it is merely incidental to the killing, it is absorbed in the murder.

Benjamin Ong and Henry Chua were friends and distant relatives who, for about one and a half years before April 1971, played mahjong with a group that included Ko King Pin, Go Bon Kin, and Marcelo Tanlimco. Ong was an assistant manager at Acme Shoes, Rubber and Plastic Corporation, owned by his brother-in-law Chua Pak; Bienvenido Quintos was an unlicensed surveyor and computer at Robes Francisco Realty Corporation and a friend of co-accused Fernando Tan. The information charged kidnapping with murder for ransom under Articles 248 and 267 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 48 on complex crimes, with several aggravating circumstances alleged.

Benjamin Ong and Henry Chua were friends and distant relatives. For more or less one and a half years before April 1971, Ong played mahjong with Chua and Chua’s companions Ko King Pin, Go Bon Kin, and Marcelo Tanlimco. Ong lost substantially, at one time as much as P150,000, and still owed P50,000. He suspected that he had been cheated in unfair games, while Chua and his companions repeatedly pressed him to pay, threatening bodily harm to him and his family. They went time and again to Ong’s office at Acme Shoes, Rubber and Plastic Corporation, where he was assistant manager, and humiliated him in front of his superiors and subordinates. His brother-in-law and employer, Chua Pak, admonished him, and Ong resigned. On April 21, 1971, Chua called Ong by telephone, demanded early settlement of the gambling debt, and invited him to the Amihan Nightclub on April 23, 1971, with the P50,000. That same day, Ong contacted Fernando Tan, a technical supervisor at Acme who owed Ong his job, and told Tan about his grudge and plans against Chua. According to Ong, Tan said, “Why not just kill him.” Tan then contacted Baldomero Ambrosio, Ong’s godson in marriage and a former Acme employee, and Bienvenido Quintos, Tan’s boyhood friend, at Quintos’s office at Robes Francisco Realty Corporation.

On April 23, 1971, the four met at the Barrio Fiesta Restaurant in Caloocan City and finalized their plan to liquidate Chua. Riding in Ong’s Biscayne car, they went to the Amihan Nightclub and arrived past 9:00 p.m. Ong and Chua met there and had drinks; Ong asked for patience and leniency regarding his debt. From the Amihan, the two went to the nearby Wigwam Nightclub, where they tabled hostesses Ligaya Tamayo and Mickie Yaro and had more drinks. At around 1:30 a.m. on April 24, 1971, Chua and Ong left the Wigwam and rode in Chua’s Mustang car, with Chua driving. Fernando Tan, Bienvenido Quintos, and Baldomero Ambrosio followed in Ong’s Biscayne car. They drove down Roxas Boulevard, then through Quiapo and Quezon Boulevard Extension in Quezon City; after passing Sto. Domingo Church, they turned toward a dirt road leading to Del Monte Avenue. When they reached a dark and secluded place, Ong urged Chua to stop the car so Ong could urinate, and Chua obliged. The Biscayne car stopped in front; Tan and Ambrosio alighted with a flashlight and pretended to be policemen. Tan poked a gun at Chua and pulled him from the Mustang with Ambrosio’s help. Chua’s hands were tied and his mouth gagged with a flannel cloth, and he was placed in the rear of the Biscayne car, made to lie face up. Tan and Quintos rested their feet on him. Ambrosio drove the Biscayne while Ong drove the Mustang and followed.

The group proceeded through Del Monte Avenue, Roosevelt Avenue, E. de los Santos Avenue, the North Diversion Road, and Novaliches until they reached a deserted place that looked like an idle subdivision in Barrio Makatipo, Novaliches, Caloocan City. There Henry Chua was stabbed twice with an icepick, allegedly by Fernando Tan, and buried with his belongings, including a Piaget watch, lighter, wallet containing P50 bills, driver’s license, and diner’s card. The group then proceeded to Barrio Tibag, Baliuag, Bulacan, with Ong and Tan riding the Mustang; they left it locked near a gasoline station. The four regrouped in the Biscayne car and returned to Caloocan City, separating at about 7:00 a.m. on April 24, 1971.

On April 25, 1971, Patrolman Gener S. Estrella and Patrolman Ceferino Castro found the locked Mustang car with plate number 16-02B in Barrio Tibag, Baliuag, Bulacan. On April 29, 1971, Severo “Boy” Roslin saw Fernando Tan and another man introduced as Alfredo Hernandez, who was Benjamin Ong, seeking airplane seats for the Visayas; failing in that, they went to the pier, also failed to get passage south, and took a train to Lucena City. On May 1, 1971, Roslin and Tan picked up Quintos and Ong and went to Barrio Balugo, Oas, Albay, staying at Roslin’s parents’ house. Ong was arrested on August 29, 1971 in Barrio Balugo, Oas, Albay by operatives of the 2nd PC Zone and turned over to the NBI. Quintos was apprehended on September 2, 1971 at his residence in Sta. Cruz, Manila by members of the MPD and turned over to the NBI. On September 2, 1971, after Ong pinpointed the burial place, Sy Yap, brother of Henry Chua, accompanied NBI agents to Barrio Makatipo and saw the decomposing body under the ground, immersed in water, with personal effects including a white gold watch that stopped at 6:22 and date “24,” Driver’s License No. 32219 in the name of Sy Sing Biok alias Henry Chua, a Diner’s card, a Bureau of Customs pass, a receipt, a residence certificate, a lighter, a wallet, currencies, clothing, shoes, socks, brief, undershirt, T-shirt, and trousers marked “Especially tailored for Henry Chua, 2-2-71, No. 95812.” Dr. Ricardo G. Ibarrola, Jr. performed a post mortem examination and found two wounds on the liver and large intestine caused by a long pointed cylindrical instrument similar to an icepick; his necropsy report stated the cause of death as “punctured wounds of the abdomen,” although he theorized that asphyxiation from burial may have been the immediate cause. NBI agent Enrique Lacanilao testified that Exhibits “N” and “O” were the written statements signed by Ong on September 1, 1971 and by Quintos on September 3, 1971, and he described the exhumation and reenactment. Ong had a small bandage around his wrists because of an attempted suicide. Quintos claimed maltreatment, and his father testified to bluish discoloration at his navel and bloodstained clothes; medical records noted “intramascular hematoma.”

The prosecution presented Patrolman Marciano Roque, who testified that in a series of six meetings beginning the first week of April 1971, Ong confided to him a plan to get a man who had cheated him in gambling by as much as P150,000, demand money from the latter’s parents, and then kill the victim; Ong allegedly asked Roque to participate and showed him Barrio Makatipo as a suitable place. Roque reported the matter to his superiors, who did not believe Ong had the guts to do it. The prosecution also claimed that a ransom note was written and copied by Henry Chua from a prepared note before he was ice-picked and buried, based on Quintos’s supplementary extrajudicial statement that Fernando Tan ordered Chua to copy a ransom note for $50,000 while Quintos held the flashlight. No ransom note was presented in evidence, and no demand for money was shown to have been made upon Chua’s family. Ong denied any ransom plan. Quintos claimed his extrajudicial statement was not voluntary and that he was maltreated. The prosecution further claimed that as early as a week before the incident the group had chosen a site and prepared a hole, that they searched for Chua along the nightclub row on Roxas Boulevard on succeeding evenings, and that Ong contacted Clarita Teh of Skyways Travel Service on April 22, 1971 for a booking to Hongkong and Taipei, later changing the destination to Canada and depositing P4,000. Clarita Teh testified to these travel arrangements. The defense presented Dr. Mariano P. Lara, who testified that asphyxiation was not reflected in the necropsy report and that death could have been due to shock from the wounds; Rene Aguas and Artemio R. Quintos testified about Quintos’s detention and injuries. Quintos testified that he was invited by Tan on April 23, 1971, met Ong and Ambrosio at the Barrio Fiesta Restaurant, went to the Brown Derby Supper Club and Amihan Nightclub, then to the Wigwam; he saw Tan and Ambrosio drag Chua from his car, tie and gag him, and at Barrio Makatipo he refused to stab Chua and returned the icepick to Tan, who stabbed Chua twice. Ong testified that Chua was a friend and distant relative, that he felt cheated in mahjong and was humiliated by Chua’s group at his office, that Chua invited him to the Amihan Nightclub on April 21, 1971, that he admitted responsibility for Chua’s death but intended merely to kill him, that nothing was taken from the body, and that he asked Tan and Ambrosio for assistance. He denied Patrolman Roque’s testimony, said his extrajudicial statement was taken while he was groggy and weak, and described hiding in Oas, Albay. He attempted suicide while in PC custody.

The trial court found both accused guilty of kidnapping with murder, accepting the prosecution’s ransom theory and the alleged aggravating circumstances. It found that Chua’s hands were tied and his mouth gagged before he was stabbed and buried, and that the killing occurred in an isolated place. The Supreme Court’s analysis turned on the brevity of the restraint, the absence of proof of ransom, and the fact that Chua voluntarily rode with Ong before being restrained only at Del Monte Avenue and taken to Barrio Makatipo.

• Benjamin Ong — No Kidnapping / Improper Complex Crime: Ong argued that no evidence proved the crime of kidnapping was committed at all; that kidnapping cannot be complexed with murder; and that in prior cases where the Supreme Court convicted accused of kidnapping with murder, there was a shown intention to deprive the victim of liberty and the kidnapping was a necessary means to commit the murder.
• Benjamin Ong — Aggravating and Qualifying Circumstances: Ong argued that the lower court erred in finding the killing attended by the generic aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, nighttime, uninhabited place, abuse of confidence, use of a motor vehicle, and cruelty, and the qualifying circumstances of alevosia and evident premeditation; he further argued that if alevosia attended the killing, abuse of superior strength and nighttime were absorbed by treachery.
• Benjamin Ong — Mitigating Circumstances: Ong argued that the lower court erred in not appreciating his plea of guilty and circumstances of a similar nature or analogous to Article 13, paragraphs 1 to 9, of the Revised Penal Code as mitigating.
• Benjamin Ong — Penalty and Damages: Ong argued that the lower court erred in imposing the death penalty and in sentencing him to pay excessive damages.
• Bienvenido Quintos — Extrajudicial Statement: Quintos argued that the lower court erred in giving full weight and credit to his extrajudicial statement.
• Bienvenido Quintos — Conspiracy and Acquittal: Quintos argued that the lower court erred in not finding that there was no conspiracy between him and the other accused, and in not acquitting him.

• Kidnapping for Ransom: The prosecution maintained that the crime was kidnapping with murder, relying on Parulan vs. Rodas, where kidnapping was found to be a necessary means for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim and killing him if the desired amount could not be given.
• Ransom Note and Detention: The prosecution claimed that a ransom note was indeed written and copied by Henry Chua from a prepared note before he was ice-picked and buried, and that the victim was detained and transported for that purpose.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The prosecution alleged the aggravating circumstances stated in the information; however, the Acting Solicitor General agreed with the defense that abuse of superior strength should be deemed absorbed in treachery and that cruelty should not be considered, and submitted that the victim was made to lie down “face up.”
• Conspiracy and Guilt: The prosecution sought conviction of both accused for the complex crime of kidnapping with murder and the imposition of the corresponding penalty.

• Nature of the Crime: Whether the killing of Henry Chua constituted the complex crime of kidnapping with murder or only murder, considering that the victim voluntarily rode with Ong and was restrained only incidentally to the killing.
• Ransom: Whether the evidence proved the alleged ransom note and demand for ransom beyond reasonable doubt.
• Conspiracy and Liability: Whether conspiracy was established among the accused, and whether Ong and Quintos are liable for the acts of co-accused Fernando Tan, including the actual stabbing.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances: Whether treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, uninhabited place, abuse of superior strength, abuse of confidence, use of a motor vehicle, and cruelty attended the killing.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Whether Ong is entitled to the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and circumstances analogous to passion or obfuscation.
• Quintos’s Extrajudicial Statement and Acquittal: Whether the lower court erred in giving full weight to Quintos’s extrajudicial statement and in not acquitting him for lack of conspiracy.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the death penalty and damages imposed were proper.

• Nature of the Crime: Only murder. The detention was incidental to the killing and not a necessary means for murder; the victim voluntarily went with Ong and the interval of restraint was short.
• Ransom: Not proven. No ransom note was presented, no demand was shown, Ong denied ransom, and Quintos’s statement on the note was doubtful and hearsay against Ong.
• Conspiracy and Liability: Conspiracy was established. The four participated in planning and execution and were present at all stages; treachery is considered against all conspirators even if Tan did the actual stabbing.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances: Treachery qualified the killing to murder; evident premeditation and use of a motor vehicle aggravated it. Abuse of superior strength was absorbed in treachery; abuse of confidence and cruelty were rejected. The main opinion found nighttime and uninhabited place, but the dispositive records no clear consensus on them.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Yes, as to Ong. Plea of guilty and a circumstance analogous to passion or obfuscation were appreciated in his favor and offset the aggravating circumstances.
• Quintos’s Extrajudicial Statement and Acquittal: No acquittal. Although the ransom-note portion of Quintos’s extrajudicial statement was doubtful, the evidence established conspiracy and his participation in the killing; he was convicted as a principal.
• Penalty and Damages: Death penalty not imposed. Ong and Quintos were sentenced to reclusion perpetua; the civil liability was affirmed as recited in the dispositive portion.

• Nature of the Crime: The essence of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is detention. The evidence showed that Henry Chua voluntarily left the Wigwam Nightclub with Benjamin Ong and even drove his own Mustang car. The restraint began only at Del Monte Avenue and ended at Barrio Makatipo, where Chua was killed and promptly buried. Ong affirmed his extrajudicial statement that his purpose was just to kill Chua and that there was no purpose to detain him further. The interval was short and the detention was incidental to the murder, not a necessary means for its commission. The Court distinguished Parulan vs. Rodas because there the kidnapping was a necessary means to extort ransom, while here no ransom was proved. Thus, only murder was committed.
• Ransom: The prosecution failed to prove the alleged ransom note and demand. No ransom note was presented in evidence, and no demand for money was shown to have been made upon the victim’s family. Ong vehemently denied asking for ransom and stated in his extrajudicial statement that the question of ransom money never entered his mind. Quintos’s extrajudicial statement that Fernando Tan ordered Chua to copy a ransom note was tainted with serious doubts due to the apparent maltreatment Quintos received from the NBI and MPD on September 3, 1971, supported by medical certificates and case records showing “intramascular hematoma.” That statement was also hearsay and incompetent against Ong. In the reenactment, NBI agent Lacanilao testified that while the ransom note was being prepared, Ong was about 50 meters away. The victim was buried with all his belongings, including a Piaget watch worth around P10,000 and a wallet with money, which negated any intent to make money out of the murder. Patrolman Roque’s testimony about Ong’s alleged plan to demand money from the victim’s parents was also discredited due to contradictions on cross-examination.
• Conspiracy and Liability: Conspiracy, connivance, and unity of purpose and intention among the accused were present throughout the execution of the crime. The four participated in the planning and execution and were at the scene in all its stages. They could not escape the consequence of any of their acts even if they deviated in some detail from what they originally thought of. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution. Thus, treachery should be considered against all persons participating or cooperating in the perpetration of the crime, even if Fernando Tan did the actual stabbing.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances: Treachery qualified the killing to murder because Henry Chua’s hands were tied and his mouth was gagged with a flannel cloth before he was stabbed twice with an icepick and buried, rendering him defenseless and helpless and allowing the accused to commit the crime without risk. Abuse of superior strength was absorbed in treachery. Evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime, as shown by the frequent meetings of the four accused at the Barrio Fiesta Restaurant to discuss and lay out the plan, the securing of the rope, icepick, flannel cloth, flashlight, and shovel, the careful selection of an “ideal” site, and the plan to go to Taipei and Hongkong immediately after the incident. Use of a motor vehicle was aggravating because Ong’s Biscayne car was used in trailing the victim’s Mustang, carrying the victim to the scene, containing the pick and shovel, and serving as a fast means of fleeing. Abuse of confidence was wrongly appreciated by the lower court because there was no special relation of trust and confidence between Chua and Ong; Chua was not afraid of Ong and had threatened him. Cruelty could not be considered because the group intended merely to kill, bury, and flee, and the burial was meant to conceal the body and the crime, not to prolong suffering. As to nighttime and uninhabited place, the main opinion found them present, with nighttime not absorbed in treachery under People vs. Berdida and the place purposively selected; the dispositive, however, records that the members failed to arrive at a clear consensus on these two circumstances.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Ong was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. Although he entered a plea of not guilty, he invoked People vs. Yturriaga and admitted his guilt insofar as simple murder was concerned, while contesting the unfounded allegations of aggravating circumstances and the complex charge. The ruling in Yturriaga provides that an accused may still be credited with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty where the qualification does not deny guilt and is subsequently justified, and the prosecution cannot nullify the mitigating circumstance by counteracting it with unfounded allegations of aggravating circumstances. Ong was also entitled to a mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and obfuscation under Article 13, paragraph 10, of the Revised Penal Code, based on the humiliation, threats, and pressure he suffered from Chua and his companions, including the demands made at his office in front of his subordinates, the threats to his life and family, and his forced resignation. His later petition for new trial, which sought to introduce his wife’s allegation of an attempted rape by Chua, was academic because it would only bolster the same mitigating circumstance already considered.
• Quintos’s Extrajudicial Statement and Acquittal: The ransom-note portion of Quintos’s extrajudicial statement was not given full weight because of the evidence of maltreatment and because it was hearsay against Ong. However, the evidence established conspiracy and Quintos’s participation in the killing. He was present during the planning and execution, accompanied the group, held the flashlight, and was at the scene. He was therefore convicted as a principal, not acquitted. No mitigating circumstance was appreciated in his favor.
• Penalty and Damages: The death penalty was not imposed. Ong was sentenced to reclusion perpetua because the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and use of a motor vehicle were offset by the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and one analogous to passion or obfuscation. Quintos, although without mitigating circumstances and otherwise liable for death, was also sentenced to reclusion perpetua because Ong was sentenced only to reclusion perpetua, because Justice Barredo concluded Quintos was guilty only as an accomplice, and because the Court would not have the necessary ten votes for the imposition of the death penalty. The civil liability was affirmed as recited in the dispositive portion.

• Incidental Detention in Murder — Where the victim is taken from one place to another solely for the purpose of killing him and not for detaining him for any length of time or for obtaining ransom, the crime is murder, not the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. The detention must be a necessary means for the commission of the murder; if it is merely incidental to the killing, it is absorbed in the murder. The Court applied this because Chua voluntarily rode with Ong, the restraint began only at Del Monte Avenue, and the interval until the killing at Barrio Makatipo was short.
• Complex Crime under Article 48 — A complex crime requires that one offense be a necessary means for committing the other. Kidnapping cannot be complexed with murder where the kidnapping was not a necessary means to commit the murder. The Court held that the detention of Chua was only incidental to the main objective of murdering him.
• Conspiracy and Liability for Acts of Co-Conspirators — Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution. All conspirators are liable for the acts of their co-conspirators in furtherance of the common design. The Court applied this to hold Ong and Quintos liable for the stabbing done by Fernando Tan and to consider treachery against all of them.
• Treachery (Alevosia) — Treachery qualifies a killing to murder when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the victim might make. The Court found treachery because Chua’s hands were tied and his mouth was gagged before he was stabbed and buried, rendering him defenseless and helpless.
• Evident Premeditation — Evident premeditation requires proof of the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that he clung to that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences. The Court found it attended the killing because of the frequent meetings, preparation of tools, selection of the site, and travel plans.
• Use of a Motor Vehicle — Use of a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the vehicle was used in transporting the victim and the accused or in facilitating the commission of the crime. The Court found that Ong’s Biscayne car was used to trail the victim, carry him to the scene, contain the pick and shovel, and serve as a means of fleeing.
• Abuse of Confidence — Abuse of confidence requires a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and the offended party, and the accused must have made use of that relation to commit the crime. The Court rejected this circumstance because there was no special relation of confidence between Chua and Ong; Chua was not afraid of Ong and had threatened him.
• Cruelty (Ensanamiento) — For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making the victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary physical or moral pain in the consummation of the criminal act. The Court rejected cruelty because the burial was meant to conceal the body and the crime, not to prolong the victim’s suffering.
• Plea of Guilty as Mitigating Despite Qualification — An accused may still be credited with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty even if the plea is qualified and evidence is introduced, where the qualification does not deny guilt and is subsequently justified. The prosecution cannot nullify the mitigating circumstance by counteracting it with unfounded allegations of aggravating circumstances. The Court applied this to Ong under People vs. Yturriaga.
• Passion or Obfuscation and Analogous Mitigating Circumstances — A mitigating circumstance analogous to passion or obfuscation may be appreciated where the accused acted under the influence of a grave offense, threats, humiliation, and pressure that diminished his volition. The Court applied this to Ong based on Chua’s persistent demands, threats, and humiliation.
• Ransom as Element of Capital Kidnapping — Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of death is imposed when the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person. The prosecution must prove the ransom purpose beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the ransom purpose not proved because no ransom note was presented, no demand was made, and the victim was buried with his valuables.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — An accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the evidence insufficient to prove the kidnapping charge beyond reasonable doubt, so the accused could be held liable only for the killing.

• "If the detention of the victim is only incidental to the main objective of murdering him, and is not a necessary means for the commission of the murder, the crime is only murder and not the complex one of murder through kidnapping." — This is the canonical formulation quoted by the Court from Justice Aquino’s commentary, stating the ratio for rejecting the complex crime of kidnapping with murder.
• "In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, We hold that there was no kidnapping, but only murder, because the detention of Chua was only incidental to the main objective of murdering him and was not a necessary means for the commission of the murder." — This is the Court’s direct holding on the nature of the crime, applying the incidental-detention rule to the facts.
• "Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution." — This passage states the Court’s ratio for holding all conspirators liable for the acts of co-conspirators, including the actual stabbing by Fernando Tan.
• "For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain in the consummation of the criminal act." — This defines the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, which the Court rejected because the burial was intended to conceal the body and the crime.
• "It was not the defendant's fault that aggravating circumstances were erroneously alleged in the information and mitigating circumstances omitted therefrom. If such qualification could deprive the accused of the benefit of plea of guilty, then the prosecution could nullify this mitigating circumstance be counteracting it with unfounded allegations of aggravating circumstances." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Yturriaga, supports the Court’s appreciation of Ong’s plea of guilty despite his qualified plea.

• People vs. Manzanero, Jr., L-33698, December 20, 1973, 54 SCRA 335 — Cited by the Court for the rule that the non-production of an alleged ransom note and the absence of any demand for ransom seriously impair the prosecution’s theory of kidnapping for ransom.
• People vs. Yturriaga, 86 Phil. 534 (1950) — Cited for the doctrine that an accused may still be credited with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty even if the plea is qualified, where the qualification does not deny guilt and is subsequently justified, and the prosecution cannot nullify the mitigating circumstance with unfounded aggravating allegations.
• Parulan vs. Rodas, 88 Phil. 615 — Cited by the prosecution but distinguished by the Court; the kidnapping there was a necessary means to extort ransom and kill the victim if the ransom was not paid, unlike the present case where no ransom was proved.
• US vs. Nicolas Ancheta, et al., No. 422, March 14, 1902, 1 Phil. 165 — Cited as an early ruling that taking the victim from his house to an uninhabited place selected for the purpose of killing him does not constitute illegal detention, because the primary objective was to kill.
• US vs. Teodoro de Leon, No. 522, March 10, 1902, 1 Phil. 163 — Cited for the rule that even with a demand for ransom, the accused was found guilty of murder only, not kidnapping with murder.
• People vs. Eligio Camo and Buenaventura Manzanido, L-4741, May 7, 1952, 91 Phil. 240 — Cited for the holding that where the victim was taken from his home but not for illegal detention for any length of time or for ransom, the crime committed was simple murder, not complex kidnapping with murder.
• People vs. Nestorio Remalante, L-3512, September 26, 1952, 92 Phil. 48 — Cited for the rule that a short detention and ill-treatment included in the perpetration of the killing do not constitute kidnapping.
• People vs. Silvino Guerrero, et al., L-9559, May 14, 1958, 103 Phil. 1136 — Cited for the holding that kidnapping was not a necessary means to commit the murder, so the complex crime of kidnapping with murder could not be sustained as to the victim who was killed.
• People vs. Berdida, L-20183, June 30, 1966, 17 SCRA 520 — Cited for the exception that nighttime is not absorbed in treachery where treachery rests upon an independent factual basis.
• People vs. Curiano, L-15256-57, October 31, 1962 — Cited for the appreciation of an uninhabited place as an aggravating circumstance where the place was chosen to prevent the victim from receiving help and to secure the offenders from detection.
• US vs. Cruz, et al., 4 Phil. 252 (1905) — Cited for the requirement that abuse of confidence demands proof of the confidence granted or given and that the accused abused it to facilitate the crime.
• People vs. Brocal, CA, 36 O.G. 858 (1937) — Cited for the rule that there is no abuse of confidence where the accused was in the company of the offended party not because of confidence but because of a business relationship.
• People vs. Timoteo Olgado, et al., L-4406, March 31, 1952, 91 Phil. 908 — Cited for the appreciation of passion and obfuscation or vindication of a grave offense as a mitigating circumstance.
• People vs. Mitra, et al., 107 Phil. 851 (1960) — Cited for the rule that use of a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the vehicle was used in transporting the victim and the accused.
• People vs. Llanera, L-21604-6, May 25, 1973, 1 SCRA 48 — Cited for the definition of cruelty as requiring deliberate enjoyment of the victim’s slow and gradual suffering.
• People vs. Suday, L-33572, October 10, 1974 — Cited among cases supporting the appreciation of treachery where the victim’s hands were tied, rendering him defenseless.
• People vs. Mojica, L-17234, March 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 515 — Cited for the doctrine that conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution.
• People vs. Carandang, et al., 54 Phil. 503 (1930) — Cited for the rule that treachery is considered against all persons participating or cooperating in the perpetration of the crime.
• People vs. Hanasan, L-25989, September 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 534 — Cited for the appreciation of evident premeditation based on the accused’s persistent planning and preparation.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder. The Court used this provision to convict both accused of murder after rejecting the complex crime of kidnapping with murder.
• Article 267, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 18 and 1084 — Defines kidnapping and serious illegal detention and imposes the death penalty when the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. The Court held that the ransom purpose was not proved and that the detention was merely incidental to the killing, so the provision did not justify conviction for kidnapping with murder.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Defines complex crimes. The Court held that kidnapping could not be complexed with murder because the kidnapping was not a necessary means for the commission of the murder.
• Article 13, Revised Penal Code — Enumerates mitigating circumstances. The Court applied the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and a circumstance analogous to passion or obfuscation in favor of Benjamin Ong.
• Article 14, Revised Penal Code — Enumerates aggravating circumstances. The Court discussed and applied evident premeditation and use of a motor vehicle, absorbed abuse of superior strength in treachery, and rejected abuse of confidence and cruelty; the main opinion also discussed nighttime and uninhabited place, although the dispositive records no clear consensus on those two circumstances.
• Rule 133, Section 1, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that an accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court relied on this rule in finding the kidnapping charge not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Makalintal, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma, and Aquino, JJ., concurred. Castro, J., concurred in the result. Fernando, J., took no part. Justices Teehankee and Makasiar concurred but were of the opinion that the crime committed by both accused was kidnapping with murder and that the kidnapping was conceived for the purpose of extorting ransom, among other motives. Justice Barredo filed a concurring and dissenting opinion.

• Justice Barredo (concurring and dissenting) — He concurred in the finding that Ong and Quintos were guilty of murder and that conspiracy was proven, but disagreed with the majority on several points. He believed the crime was murder, not kidnapping with ransom with murder, because the ransom note was not established and no demand was made. He would not appreciate nighttime and uninhabited place as aggravating, and would consider only evident premeditation and use of a motor vehicle as aggravating. He would credit Ong with plea of guilty, passion or obfuscation or vindication of a grave offense, and an additional mitigating circumstance analogous to plea of guilty for disclosing details that enabled the prosecution to allege aggravating circumstances. He would sentence Ong to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. He would hold Quintos guilty only as an accomplice, not as a principal, because Quintos refused to stab the victim and his participation was cooperation short of direct participation; he would sentence Quintos to 6 years of prision correccional as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum. He also explained that he could not vote for less than death when aggravating circumstances are not sufficiently offset by mitigating circumstances, but in this case he found sufficient mitigating circumstances.