Incredible defenses

In some crimes, an accused may be exempted from criminal liability because of imbecility and his being prompted to act the way he did due to uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. These cases of Cardo and Nardo explain the meaning of these exempting circumstances within the contemplation of the law (Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code).

One afternoon at about 1:15 pm, the accused Cardo, went inside the campus of a private school and approached Benjo, a 14-year-old high school student. He persuaded Benjo to go with him on the pretext that he would turn over the proceeds of the sale of a property to Benjo’s father. Cardo also persuaded Benjo to bring along his classmate, Kevin also 14 years old, so he will have a companion when they go home later. Kevin agreed as he and Benjo were best of friends in and out of school even if Benjo is the scion of a well to do family while Kevin is the son of a jeepney driver only.

The two boys were brought to a nipa hut in the middle of a fishpond to await a certain “Ka Berto,” another accused. Benjo and Kevin attempted to go home, but Cardo stopped them and told them that Ka Berto was already arriving and wanted them blindfolded with their feet tied. So Cardo tied their hands and feet with a wire rope. While the two protested, Cardo assured them that they will not be harmed.

Later, the other accused Nardo came and checked if the two boys were securely tied after which Cardo played a tape demanding P3 million from Benjo’s parents in exchange for his release. Benjo was likewise made to record his own voice pleading his parents to pay the ransom demanded. Then Nardo carried Kevin to the river and kicked Benjo to go with them. At the river Cardo dragged Kevin by the neck towards the middle and left him to drown. After asking Nardo to look for the necklace of Kevin, they returned to the hut where Nardo stood guard over Benjo as Cardo went to sleep.

In the hut, Benjo managed to untie his feet and asked Nardo to remove the wire around his hands on the assurance that he would not escape and would just sleep. The following morning, when Cardo went to Benjo’s parents to deliver the tape recordings and while Nardo was busy cutting the grass near the river, Benjo escaped and proceeded to the house of Cardo where he called up his grandmother. Later he was fetched by his father and grandmother and they reported the kidnapping at the police station. Two days later, Kevin’s body was recovered at the river with both hands and feet still tied and his mouthed gagged.

After investigation, Cardo, Nardo and Ka Berto were charged with the crimes of kidnapping with murder and kidnapping for ransom. Only Cardo and Nardo were arrested and tried as “Ka Berto” remained at large. The lower court in a joint decision convicted them of both crimes charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each crime. Only Nardo appealed and insisted that he is an imbecile with a very low level of intelligence citing his act of cutting the grass when he should be guarding Benjo. He also averred that he merely acted under fear and duress as his co-accused Cardo poked a gun at him and threatened him with death if he will not follow his orders.

But the Supreme Court did not accept Nardo’s defense. According to the SC, imbecility is a mental condition approaching that of insanity. An imbecile within the meaning of the Article 12 RPC, is one who must be completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. He is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of a child between two and seven years old. Nardo’s act of cutting grass rather than guarding his victim could hardly be indicative of imbecility. Rather, it may be considered as negligence but definitely not childishness or even that of one completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of the will. In fact Nardo admitted on cross examination that he can tell what is right and what is wrong. So his feeblemindedness is not an exempting circumstance because he could distinguish between right and wrong.

Nardo’s claim that he was forced to do what he did on account of uncontrollable fear, duress or intimidation is belied by the fact that he had at least four chances to escape: (1) when Cardo brought Kevin to the middle of the river while he remained on the rice paddy; (2) when Cardo was sleeping in the nipa hut; (3) when Cardo asked him to look for the necklace of Kevin on the river bank; and when Cardo left him and Benjo to deliver the taped recorded ransom demand to Benjo’s family. By not availing of these chances to escape his allegation of fear and duress becomes incredible.

Nardo’s knowledge of what is right and wrong and his failure to escape shows that he also conspired with Cardo to commit the crime charged as can be deduced from his following acts: first, when he arrived, he immediately checked if the victims are securely tied; second when he carried Kevin to the river; and third when he kicked Benjo after ordering him to go to the river.

So Cardo and Nardo are guilty of kidnapping for ransom with respect to Benjo and should therefore be sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Considering however that Cardo and Nardo never intended to hold Kevin for ransom as he was the son of a jeepney driver, the crime committed by them against Kevin is only homicide. So their sentence should only be from 10 years and one day up to 18 years, 6 months and 1 day (People vs. Nunez and Cayetano, G.R. 112429-30, July 23, 1997).