Report on Benhur Luy Case

I. Case Digest

Facts:
For review of the Court of Appeals was the April 14, 2015 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region, Br. 150, Makati City, in Crim. Case
No. 13-1992, finding the Accused-Appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Serious Illegal Detention, defined and penalized under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), sentencing her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to pay the private complainant Fifty Thousand Pesos(PhP50,000.00) as civil
indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos(PhP50,000.00) as moral damages.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed complaint for Serious Illegal
Detention against Janet Napoles y Lim (Accused-Appellant) and Reynald Lim y Luy alias
Jojo (Jojo). This was based on the alleged information that a certain Benhur Luy has
been illegally detained and deprived of liberty for three months. This is in connection
with the Pork Barrel Case.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused appellant is guilty of the crime serious illegal
detention?

Ruling:
RTC:
The Accused-Appellant was convicted by the RTC of the crime charged. The RTC
found that Benhur had indeed been illegally detained and that he had positively
established that the Accused-Appellant and Jojo conspired to commit such crime. In
support, it gave great credence to the testimony of Benhur as supported by other
witnesses.

Court of Appeals:
Our present Constitution guarantees that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. This presumption has been
described as that bedrock axiomatic and elementary principle whose enforcement
lies at the foundation of the administration of criminal law.42 Thus, the State has the
burden to establish by proof all the essential elements of the crime with which
accused is charged and to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of said
crime.43 When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, it has been a long-standing
policy that the presumption of innocence must be favored, and exoneration must be
granted as a matter of right. Indeed, where there is reasonable doubt, the accused
must be acquitted even though her innocence may not have been established.
 The crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention is defined and penalized
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
In its prosecution, the following elements must be established beyond reasonable
doubt: 1)that the offender is a private individual; 2)that he kidnaps or detains
another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; 3)that the act of
detention or kidnapping must be illegal; 4)that in the commission of the offense, any
of the following circumstances are present: a)that the kidnapping or detention lasts
for more than three(3) days; b)that it is committed simulating public authority; c)that
any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill him are made; or d)that the person kidnapped is a minor, female or
public officer.
The prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain the resistance of Benhur Luy to the
rescue operation, which, this negates the claim of serious illegal detention. During
the trial, and given a period of time to have possibly afforded himself the benefit of
concocting an afterthought, Benhur countered that he thought the rescue operatives
were commissioned to kill him by the Accused-Appellant, thus explaining his
resistance. The court find the allegation flimsy and too convenient to warrant
appreciation. The court recall from the testimonies that when the rescue operatives
entered the condominium units in South Gardens, they were accompanied by
Benhur's brother, Arthur, and appropriately introduced themselves as members of
the NBI.
In addition to the above elements, it is also necessary that there be indubitable
proof that such deprivation of liberty was the actual intent of the the Accused-
Appellant.63 In Serious Illegal Detention, there must be a purposeful or knowing
action by the accused to forcibly restrain the victim because taking, coupled with
intent completes the offense.64 This is consistent with the principle of actus non facit
reum nisi mens set rea or the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his
intentions were. Thus, under Our criminal justice system, the essence of an offense
is the wrongful intent(dolo), without which it cannot exist. Under Article 3 of the RPC,
malice or dolo in some form is an essential requisite of all crimes and offenses
defined in the Code, except in those cases where the element required is
negligence(culpa)

Agree or Disagree?
Upon delving to the facts of the case and deeply scrutinizing the decision of Regional Trial
Court and Court of Appeals, I found the accused guilty of the crime of serious illegal detention.

Below are the following basis:

 1. The crime of serious illegal detention has the following elements:
(1) the offender is a private individual;
(2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
(3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and
(4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present: (a)
the kidnapping or detention lasts more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by simulating
public authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or
detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.

The first element is clearly proven as the accused, Lim and Napoles do not hold any
position in a public office. The latter being an owner of group of companies. Thus, they are
considered private individuals.

With regard to the second element, the facts of the case must be thoroughly scrutinize. It is my
understanding that the crime against liberty arises from the provision of Article 3 Section 1 of the
1987 Constitution which provides that:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws

According to Black Law’s Dictionary, Liberty is defined as freedom; exemption from extraneous
control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted
choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control
from other persons. “Liberty,” as used in the provision of the fourteenth amendment to the
federal constitution, forbidding the states to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, includes, it seems, not merely the right of a person to be free from
physical restraint, but to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties in all lawful ways; to live and
work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or
avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and
essential to carrying out the purposes above mentioned.

From the foregoing definition and provision, it should appear and be apparent that once a person
is directed by others of his actions or when the decision is controlled by others or when the action
of a person is limited not by his own choices, then deprivation of liberty may have been
committed. In a strict sense, this does not involve the parent-children relationship since the
actions by the parents amount to disciplinary orders, unless there is a proof to the contrary.

Clearly in the instant case, complainant Benhur Luy is deprived of liberty based on his allegations
on his testimony. His actions were limited, that on the moment he attempted to leave after the
discovery of alleged communication with certain Maya, a man named Paquito Dimso prevented
him from doing so. Instead, the accused ordered the security officers to transfer Benhur to
another room. He was escorted from room 2502 to room 2501 by the two(2) and Andres Atan,
another security personnel. Benhur was instructed by Jojo to just stay therein. Jojo then ordered
Nap to watch over Benhur and not allow him to go out. These actions were followed by series of
acts amounting to deprivation of liberty. This may be concluded from the statement of the Father
Peter Edward Lavin by Atty. Villamor.

Q: Now, aside from visiting him on December 26, 2012, when did you visit again Benhur in Bahay
ni San Jose?
A: Approximately[,] I am not sure, around 3 or 4 times from December to March, sir.

From this, it should be concluded that Benhur Luy was deprived of his liberty by putting him in a
retreat house and do only what he may do while in the said vicinity. This may seem a very unusual
deprivation of liberty but regardless of the way on how a crime is committed. Any means or
method acquired to accompany a crime must be punished.

The third element is crystal clear that the act of depriving Benhur Luy’s liberty is illegal. Both
respondents had no authority and/or justifiable reason to detain and deprive complainant
Benhur Luy of his liberty.(Napoles v De Lima, G.R. No. 213529, July 13, 2016)

As to the fourth element, it is undisputed that complainant Benhur Luy was deprived of his liberty
for more than three (3) days. In fact, it lasted for months starting December 2012 up to March
2013, when complainant Benhur Luy was rescued by the NBI. (Napoles v De Lima, G.R. No.
213529, July 13, 2016)

2. Intent was proven by the motive of the accused. The decision of Justice Leonen also finds
the claim that complainant Benhur Luy went on a "spiritual retreat" at Bahay San Jose as
contrary to human nature (to say the least). The records would show that respondent
Janet Lim Napoles was extremely mad at complainant Benhur Luy for obtaining
unauthorized loans in her behalf. With the anger of respondent Janet Lim Napoles, it
difficult to believe that complainant Benhur Luy would choose to have a spiritual retreat
with priests that are closely associated with respondent Janet Lim Napoles. Why would
complainant Benhur Luy choose to stay in an establishment that has close ties with
respondent Janet Lim Napoles if the latter was already hell bent on filing a criminal case
against him? An examination of the facts and circumstances of the instant case leads the
court to conclude that respondents had motive to deprive complainant Benhur Luy of his
liberty. Respondent Janet Lim Napoles averred that she discovered that complainant
Benhur Luy illegally obtained two (2) loans in her behalf. This, in turn, angered respondent
Janet Lim Napoles, and the latter even threatened to file a criminal case against him.
 However, complainant Benhur Luy’s alleged knowledge of the anomalous transactions of
JLN Group of Companies would place respondent Janet Lim Napoles in a compromising
position. If complainant Benhur Luy is sued, then the latter would not have any choice but
to reveal his knowledge on the involvement of JLN in the PDAF, Malampaya and the
Fertilizer scams. To avoid this, respondents restrained his liberty, thereupon forcing
complainant Benhur Luy’s silence.

Obviously, fishing into the motives of the perpetrators of this crime is an ardent task.
However, Justice Leonen finds that the above-captioned proposition makes more sense
than the one proferred by respondents. While the Justice Leonen does not deny that
there is evidence that complainant Benhur Luy committed the crime of qualified theft,
their defense that he went on a spiritual retreat, [i]n a house with close ties with
respondent Janet Lim Napoles, is simply unfathomable to believe.

Moreover, even if the alleged knowledge of complainant Benhur Luy on the anomalies
involving JLN group of companies is disregarded, it is still logical to conclude that the
qualified theft committed by the latter created a motive on the part of respondents to
detain him.

3. Participation of respondent Janet Lim Napoles is evident that she was greatly involved in
the deprivation of liberty of complainant Benhur Luy based on the statements made by
Merlita Suñas and Maria Flor Villanueva which clearly manifest respondent Janet Lim
Napoles’ knowledge of the crime.

Benhur Luy’s detention at Bahay San Jose, which has close ties with respondent Janet Lim
Napoles, is indicative that she had personal knowledge of what was happening. As earlier
ruled, it would be highly illogical for Benhur Luy to have his retreat in a house that has
very close ties to Janet Napoles.