THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
TY SUI WONG, VICTOR NG alias "TY SING LING" ROQUE DEJUNGCO alias "GERRY", JOSE
DE LOS SANTOS alias "PEPENG KOMANG", ROMUALDO CARREON alias "OMENG"
JUANITO ANG y DEJUNGCO, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, defendants. VICTOR NG alias "TY
SING LING" and JOSE DE LOS SANTOS alias "PEPENG KOMANG", defendants-appellants.

FACTS: a love triangle involving a certain Victor and Mariano, each out to win the heart of Ruby.
Victor left Manila for Mindanao. Victor sought the help of hoodlums in manila with the help of another
conspirator to kill Mariano. First they met and discussed on how the plan is to be worked out then
headed to recognize the face of Mariano. When the plan is finally being carried out the persons
accused kidnapped Mariano from his residence. They killed Mariano with a stab targeting his heart
as this was confirmed through the confessions of the conspirators.

While Victor was away, the dead body of Mariano was found with multiple stab wounds in a dark
alley in Pasay.

Victor Ng interposed a defense of alibi and that he was made to sign a document under duress

ISSUE: Whether Victor Ng is guilty of the crime charged

HELD: Yes, Evidence pointed to a conspiracy among Sampaloc hoodlums who had no direct link
with Victor as can be inferred directly from their confessions. However, one of the neighbors of the
Sampaloc hoodlums was a classmate of Victor. In the end, on the basis of interlocking confessions,
the Court found Victor and his classmate together with all the Sampaloc hoodlums guilty of
kidnapping with murder.

It is contended by the Solicitor General that appellants should be convicted of the complex crime of
kidnapping with murder. It is smarted that when a person kidnaps the victim for no other purpose
than to kill him but only after he detains him for a considerable length of time, taking him from one
city or town to another city or town, and finally to a deserted place in still another town where he kills
him, as in the case at bar, the offense committed is serious illegal detention with murder punishable
either under Article 248 or Article 267, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article
48 thereof. There is no question, however, that the clear manifest intention of the appellants was to
kill the victim the kidnapping of the victim merely incidental to the principal purpose. It seems evident
that the weight of authority is in favor of the proposition that where a victim was taken from one place
to another solely for the purpose of killing him and not for detaining him for a length of time or for the
purpose of obtaining a ransom for his release, the crime committed is murder, and not the complex
crime of kidnapping with murder. 29 We find that such principle is applicable to this case.