PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN ONG Y KHO, AND BIENVENIDO QUINTOS Y SUMALJAG, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

People versus Ong

The Case

This is the automatic appeal of Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido Quintos from a judgment of the Circuit Criminal Court of the Seventh Judicial District convicting them of kidnapping with murder and sentencing each to death. The victim was Henry Chua, a mahjong companion of Ong, who was seized in Parañaque, taken to a deserted place in Novaliches, made to write a ransom note, stabbed with an icepick, and buried. The case matters because it is a capital prosecution in which the Supreme Court must review the sufficiency of the evidence, the credibility of the extrajudicial statements, and the correctness of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances that carried the death penalty.

Procedural History

The Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed an information for kidnapping with murder against Benjamin Ong, Bienvenido Quintos, Fernando Tan, and Baldomero Ambrosio, the last two being at large. The case was tried by the Circuit Criminal Court of the Seventh Judicial District, which found Ong and Quintos guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced each to death, ordered them to indemnify the heirs of Henry Chua in the amount of 12,000 pesos, to pay 50,000 pesos as moral damages and another 50,000 pesos as exemplary damages jointly and severally, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case came to the Supreme Court on automatic appeal.

Facts

For about a year and a half before the killing, Benjamin Ong played mahjong with Henry Chua and Chua's companions, Ko King Pin, Go Bon Kim, and Marcelo Tanlimco. Ong lost heavily, at one point as much as 150,000 pesos, and he suspected that he had been cheated in unfair games. Chua and his companions pressed him for payment and threatened him with bodily harm, going repeatedly to his office at the Acme Shoes, Rubber and Plastic Corporation to confront him. The humiliation was severe enough that Ong resigned from his job.

On April 21, 1971, Chua called Ong and demanded settlement of the gambling debt, inviting him to the Amihan Nightclub on April 23, 1971, to bring the 150,000 pesos. Ong sought the help of Fernando Tan, a technical supervisor at Acme who owed Ong his job. Tan contacted Baldomero Ambrosio, Ong's godson in marriage, and Bienvenido Quintos, his boyhood friend. The four met at the Barrio Fiesta Restaurant in Caloocan City and finalized a plan to kill Chua.

On the night of April 23, 1971, Ong and Chua met at the Amihan Nightclub and later moved to the nearby Wigwam Nightclub, where they had two hostesses, Ligaya Tamayo and Mickie Yaro. At around 1:30 in the morning of April 24, 1971, the two left and rode in Chua's Mustang car. Tan, Quintos, and Ambrosio followed in Ong's Biscayne car. When they reached a dark and secluded place, Ong asked Chua to stop so he could urinate. The Biscayne arrived, Tan and Ambrosio alighted with a flashlight pretending to be policemen, and Tan poked a gun at Chua and pulled him from the Mustang. Chua was forced into the rear of the Biscayne, made to lie face up, his hands tied and his mouth gagged. The group drove to a deserted place in Barrio Makatipo, Novaliches, Caloocan City. There Chua was made to write a ransom note for the payment of 50,000 dollars by his family, after which he was stabbed twice with an icepick and buried. His decomposing body was recovered on September 2, 1971, after Ong pinpointed the burial place.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido Quintos for kidnapping with murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the extrajudicial statements of the accused were voluntarily executed and admissible in evidence.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of kidnapping attended the killing of Henry Chua.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information were properly appreciated.
• Whether or not the penalty of death was correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as referred to in the judgment of the trial court, provides:

Whoever shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

This provision defines murder and supplies the penalty, which the trial court applied in relation to the crime of kidnapping.

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, also referred to in the judgment, provides:

Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will; Any person who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty; Shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods, if it shall have lasted more than one day but not more than three days. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum and medium periods, if the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted less than one day. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the kidnapping or detention shall not have lasted more than one day. The same penalty shall be imposed upon anyone who shall kidnap or detain another for the purpose of extorting ransom from the latter or from any other person, even if none of the circumstances above mentioned were present.

This provision punishes kidnapping and detention, and its last paragraph specifically covers kidnapping for the purpose of extorting ransom, which is the charge in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of both accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution established the plan, the seizure of Henry Chua, the making of the ransom note, the stabbing, and the burial. The testimony of Patrolman Marciano Roque, to whom Ong confided the plan weeks before the killing, the testimony of Ligaya Tamayo placing Ong with Chua at the Wigwam Nightclub shortly before the abduction, the recovery of the body and personal effects, and the necropsy findings all corroborated one another. Ong himself admitted responsibility for Chua's death, claiming only that his purpose was to kill and not to extort. The Court found that the killing was attended by treachery, as the victim was gagged, tied, and stabbed while helpless, and that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim's family.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim that the extrajudicial statements were involuntary. The records showed that Ong and Quintos were assisted by counsel and that their statements were taken after they had been informed of their rights. The claim of maltreatment was not substantiated. The Court gave weight to the statements because they were corroborated by the physical evidence and by the reenactment of the crime.

On the third issue, the Court held that the qualifying circumstance of kidnapping attended the killing. The victim was deprived of his liberty, taken from one place to another, and detained against his will. The kidnapping was not merely incidental to the killing; it was a separate act that qualified the crime as kidnapping with murder under Article 267 in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

On the fourth issue, the Court found that the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, nighttime, use of a motor vehicle, and cruelty were present. The plan was hatched days before the killing, the crime was committed at night, a motor vehicle was used to transport the victim, and the victim was stabbed repeatedly and buried while still alive, which constituted cruelty.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the penalty of death was correctly imposed. The crime was kidnapping with murder, a special complex crime punishable by death under the law then in force. The Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

Doctrine

Kidnapping with murder is a special complex crime. When a person is kidnapped or detained for the purpose of extorting ransom and the victim is killed, the crime is not simple kidnapping nor simple murder but the composite crime of kidnapping with murder, punishable by death under Article 267 in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The qualifying circumstance of kidnapping is not absorbed by the killing; it remains a distinct element that raises the penalty. Treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, use of a motor vehicle, and cruelty may be appreciated as aggravating circumstances. Extrajudicial statements are admissible if the accused was informed of his rights and assisted by counsel, and the burden is on the accused to prove that the statements were involuntary.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Criminal Court convicting Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido Quintos of kidnapping with murder and sentencing each to death, with the civil indemnity and damages as ordered.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that kidnapping for ransom followed by the killing of the victim is the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder, punishable by death. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between kidnapping with murder and simple murder, and to test the appreciation of aggravating circumstances in a capital offense.