TITLE 9 CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY & SECURITY CASE DIGESTS

People v. Chan

G.R. 226836

December 5, 2018

FACTS:

This is an appeal filed by appellants Bong and Elmo Chan from the March 31, 2016 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R CR-HC No. 06418, affirming the July 31, 2013 where the RTC rendered a Decision finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention as defined and penalized under Article 267 of the RPC. The RTC gave no credence to the appellants' defenses of alibi and denial considering the positive testimony of Ernesto, who had no ill motive to testify falsely against the appellants. According to the version of the prosecution,the victim left Ernesto's house; that Ernesto followed the victim only until the latter was nearing the house of Helen Pamo; that the victim was about 10-20 meters ahead of Ernesto; that when the victim reached Melrose's house, Ernesto saw appellants come out of the yard; that upon seeing appellants, Ernesto hid; that Ernesto saw appellants hit the victim with bamboo sticks on the neck and kept hitting him even after he became unconscious and fell to the ground face down; that appellants went inside the yard; that they came back carrying a sack; that the appellants placed the victim, who was then unconscious, inside the sack and carried him inside their yard; that Ernesto did not see what happened thereafter.

The defense, on the other hand, offered the testimony of appellant Bong and his sister who testified that around 9:00 p.m. of September 27, 2004, she was inside their house when the victim and Tito wanted to buy liquor; that she told the victim that she had no more stock of wine; that, contrary to the claim of the prosecution, there was no heated argument; that she left them and returned inside their house to take care of her husband who was sick at that time; and that on the said night, her brother and her father were at the auditorium of Barangay Tawin-tawin, which is a kilometer away from their house, to watch over their sacks of palay. Appellants appealed the case to the CA putting in issue the credibility of Ernesto. They contended that Ernesto's testimony that he was driving his jeepney in the morning of September 28, 2004 to earn money contradicted with the testimony of Rachelle that Ernesto was with them in the morning of September 28, 2004 looking for the victim. They further argued that the prosecution failed to prove actual confinement, detention, or restraint of the victim.On March 31, 2016, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or notelements of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention are present in this case.

HELD:

Yes. All the elements of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention are present in this case. First, appellants are both private individuals. Second, the fact that they kidnapped the victim was clearly established by the testimony of the prosecution's eyewitness, Ernesto. Third, appellants' act of kidnapping was illegal. Lastly, the victim has been detained for more than three days. In fact, until now, the victim has not returned, nor his body been found.

 

 

 

 

 

 

People v. Damayo

G.R. No. 232631

September 26, 2018

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted the accused for the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom under Art. 267 of the RPC. On August 7, 2008, at 12:00 noon, Jerome Rosario, then 11 years old,was outside his school at Sucat Elementary School, Brgy. Sucat, Muntinlupa City when Damayo, known to him as Kuya Frank, approached and told him that he was there to fetch him as they were going somewhere. Since Jerome was familiar with Damayo, he went with him and both boarded a jeep bound for Pasay. Upon arriving at Pasay, they boarded a bus. Jerome did not know where they were going. Worried that Jerome had not returned from school, his parents Edna Rosario and Jerry Rosario started to look for Jerome.When they chanced upon Daryll, a classmate of Jerome, and asked him on his whereabouts,Daryll informed them that an unknown man had taken Jerome during dismissal time. Edna and Jerry then reported the incident to the barangay, where it was blottered.

                The nextday,  Edna received a call on her daughter's cellphone from a person who introduced himself as Jerome's classmate. The man, whom Edna recognized to be Damayo, stated that Jerome was with him and will be let go, provided that he will be given P150,000.00 and Edna will be unaccompanied when they meet. He directed her to meet him at a terminal in Dau, Pampanga.The following day, August 9, 2008, Edna and Jerry went to the Muntinlupa City Police Station to report the matter. An operation was planned to retrieve Jerome, where it was agreed that upon meeting Damayo at the designated meet-up point, Edna would touch Damayo's arm, signaling to the police his identity. At 2:00 P.M. of the same date, Edna, Jerry, and the police officers ,proceeded to the Dau  terminalin Mabalacat,Pampanga.Upon seeing Damayo, Edna touched his arm which prompted the police to arrest him. After handcuffing him, informing him of his arrest and reading him his constitutionalrights, the police asked Damayowhere Jeromewas being kept.DamayotoldthemthatJeromewasathishouseatNo.301 Telabastaga,San Fernando,Pampanga.They proceededto the area and were able to safely recover Jerome.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC

HELD:

                No. The elements of kidnapping as embodied in Article 267 of RPC have been sufficiently proven in the case at bench. It is undisputed that Damayo is a private individual, and that he took Jerome from his school at Sucat Elementary School, Barangay Sucat, Muntinlupa City on August 7, 2008 at 12:00 noon, brought said victim to his house at No. 301 Telabastaga, San Fernando, Pampanga, and kept him there until he was safely recovered by his parents and the police officers on August 9, 2008. That Damayo had no justification whatsoever to detain Jerome is undeniable. Although it was not established that Jerome was placed inside an enclosure or was locked up, he was nonetheless deprived of his liberty because he cannot leave the place where Damayo brought him as the latter remained outside and kept watch of him. This only goes to show that Jerome was constantly guarded by Damayo during the period of his captivity. Also, let it be underscored that leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way home, even if he had the freedom to roam around the place of detention, would still amount to deprivation of liberty inasmuch as under this situation, the child's freedom remains at the mercy and control of the abductor. Here,bringingminor Jerometo a house locatedsomewherein Pampanga,a place which is totally unfamiliar to him and very far from his residence at Sucat, Muntinlupa City, would constitute denial of the said victim's liberty. Even if Jerome had the freedom of locomotion inside the house of Damayo, he did not have the freedom to leave the same at will or escape therefrom because he did not know where to go and could not possibly go back home to his mother Edna as he didn't know how to do so. Jerome was merely waiting and hoping that he would be brought home or that his parents would fetchhim.Verily,theprosecutionhasestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubtthat Damayo intended to deprive Jerome of his liberty, and his parents, with the custody of their minor son. People's evidence as a whole. An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.

In a crude effort to muddle the case for the prosecution, Damayo asserts that he and Edna were lovers and that he took Jerome from his school and brought him to Pampanga upon Edna's request. Damayo explains that he and Edna had considered transferring Jerome to a school in Pampanga. He claims that it had been the practice for Edna and Jerome to spend their weekends with him at their rented home in Pampanga.What destroys the veracity of Damayo's claims is the categorical and credible declaration of Jerome that he and his mother have never stayed in Pampanga with Damayo at any given time, and that he has never been in Pampanga before the kidnapping incident. Case law has it that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, and that the testimony of children of sound mind is likely to be more correct and truthful than that of older persons. Edna, on the other hand, vehemently denied that she and Damayo were lovers and that she gave him an instruction to bring Jerome to Pampanga. We agree with the courts a quo that Edna has not given her consent for Damayo to take and keep her son. This is evident from the fact that Edna, together with her husband, wasted no time and went through the trouble of going to Jerome's school to look for their son when the latter failed to go home at around 4 o'clock in the afternoon on August 7, 2008 and in having the incident of the taking of Jerome by a male person to be blottered before the Barangay Office of the Sucat, Muntinlupa City. This is, likewise, clear from the plea of Edna, via cellular phone, for Damayo to bring home her son.

Apart from Damayo's bare assertion, no other evidence was adduced by the defense to substantiate his claim that he and Edna were lovers. Lastly, the Court determines that the qualifying circumstance of extortion of ransom being the purpose of Damayo in kidnapping Jerome was duly alleged in the Information and has been sufficiently established by the prosecution. Edna clearly testified that on August 8, 2008 at around 8 o'clock in the morning, she received a call from Damayo who demanded that he be given P150,000.00 in exchange for the safe release of Jerome and that the ransom payout shall be held at the Dau Terminal, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Damayo never rebutted this particular testimony of Edna. The fact that he did not receive the ransom payment is of no consequence. Actual payment of ransom is not necessary for the crime to be committed. It is enough that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom.

 

 

 


People v. Mamantak

G.R. No. 174659

July 28, 2008

FACTS:

                At about 3:00 p.m. on December 13, 1999, Teresa went with her son XXX and her elder sister Zenaida to a McDonald’s outlet in the KP Tower in Juan Luna St., Binondo, Manila. Teresa and son looked for a vacant table while Zenaida proceeded to order their food. Shortly after Teresa took her seat, XXX, a two-year old minor, followed Zenaida to the counter. Barely had XXX gone from his mother’s sight when she realized that he had disappeared. She and her sister frantically looked for him inside and outside the premises of the fast food outlet, to no avail. As their continued search for the child was futile, they reported him missing to the nearest police detachment. The following day, Teresa went to several TV and radio stations to inform the public of the loss of Christopher and to appeal for help and information. On February 25, 2001, Teresa received a call from a woman who sounded like a Muslim. The caller claimed to have custody of XXX and asked for P30,000 in exchange for the boy. On March 27, 2001, the same Muslim-sounding woman called and instructed Teresa to get a recent photo of her son from the Jalal Restaurant at the Muslim Center in Quiapo, Manila. True enough, when Teresa went there, someone gave her a recent picture of XXX. She then contacted the mysterious woman through the cellphone number the latter had previously given her. When the woman instructed her to immediately board a ship for Mindanao, Teresa reasoned that she had not raised the ransom money yet. They then agreed to conduct the pay off in the morning of April 7, 2001 at Pitang’s Carinderia in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte. Teresa sought the help of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). A team was formed and Police Officer (PO)3 Juliet Palafox was designated to act as Teresa’s niece. Together with the PAOCTF team, Teresa left for Mindanao on April 4, 2001. On April 7, 2001, they arrived in Iligan City and proceeded to the designated meeting place. At around 8:30 a.m., while Teresa and PO3 Palafox were waiting at Pitang’s Carinderia, two women came. They were Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad Sarapida Taurak. Mamantak approached Teresa and PO3 Palafox and asked who they were waiting for. Teresa replied that they were waiting for a certain Rocma Bato, the name written at the back of the picture she received in Jalal Restaurant in Manila. She showed the photo to Mamantak who stated that she knew Bato. Mamantak then told Teresa that she would ask a cousin of Bato if the latter was already in Kapatagan. Mamantak turned to Taurak, supposedly the cousin of Bato. Taurak came near Teresa and PO3 Palafox and informed them that she had XXX. Taurak asked Teresa and PO3 Palafox to come with her but they refused. Taurak reluctantly agreed to leave Mamantak with them while she fetched Christopher. Several hours later, in the afternoon of the same day, Taurak returned and told Teresa that Christopher was in a nearby ice plant. She asked Teresa to go with her but the latter insisted on their agreement that the boy be handed over at the carinderia. Taurak relented, left and came back after several minutes with XXX. Upon seeing her son, Teresa cried and embraced him. However, the child was unmoved. He no longer recognized nor understood her for he could only speak in the Muslim dialect. When asked who he was, the boy gave a Muslim name with “Taurak” as surname.Mamantak and Taurak interrupted Teresa and demanded the ransom money. She answered that her niece had it and pointed to PO3 Palafox. Thereafter, Mamantak and PO3 Palafox boarded a jeepney which was parked outside, under Taurak’s watchful eyes. Inside the jeepney, PO3 Palafox handed the ransom money to Mamantak. At this juncture, PO3 Palafox gave the pre-agreed signal and the PAOCTF team then closed in and arrested Mamantak and Taurak.

ISSUE:

Whether the two accused are guilty of violating the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as amended by RA No. 7659

HELD:

After evaluating the respective evidence of the parties, the trial court rendered a decision on November 30, 2004 finding Taurak and Mamantak guilty as charged. Both accused LIKAD SARAPIDA TAURAK and accused RAGA SARAPIDA [MAMANTAK] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom as amended by RA No. 7659 and both are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Both accused are hereby jointly and severally ordered to pay the Christopher Basario represented by the mother, [Ma.] Teresa Basario the amount of PHP50,000.00 as compensatory damages and PHP50,000.00 as moral damages. With costs against the accused.

The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time.[11] And liberty is not limited to mere physical restraint but embraces one’s right to enjoy his God-given faculties subject only to such restraints necessary for the common welfare.Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that will release him from captivity. No specific form of ransom is required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom is intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim’s freedom. The amount of and purpose for the ransom is immaterial.

 

 

 

People v. Muit

G.R. No. 181043

October 8, 2008

FACTS:

                Pancho, Sr. told Ferraer that they wanted to use his house as a safehouse for their "visitor." Ferraer was hesitant at first as he thought it was risky for him and his... family. Hermano told Ferraer not to worry because they are not killers; their line of work is kidnap for ransom. Ferraer was assured that the money they will get would be shared equally among them.  Lipa City Deputy Chief of Police, Supt. Arcadio Mission (Supt. Mission) received a radio message from the Tanauan Police Station that a kidnapping was ongoing and the kidnappers on board a Pajero... heading towards Lipa... rdered the police posted near the Lipa City bus stop to put up a barricade. In the meantime, two teams were organized to intercept the Pajero. They proceeded to the barricade. the Pajero was spotted. At around 5:30 in the morning of 3 December 1997, Ferraer saw Pancho, Sr. and Pancho, Jr. watching the TV program "Alas Singko y Medya." He joined them and saw on the news the Pajero riddled with bullets. That night, Ferraer saw on the news program TV Patrol a footage showing the cadavers of Udon, Morales, Manuel, Bokbok and the victim, and the Pajero riddled with bullets. Ferraer also saw Muit in handcuffs.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the RTC erred in giving credence to the extra-judicial confiessions of Pancho, Jr. and Dequillo

HELD:

                No. The extra judicial confessions of Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit strengthened the case against them. There is nothing on record to support appellants' claim that they were coerced and tortured into executing their extra judicial confessions. One of the indicia of voluntariness... in the execution of appellants' extra judicial statements is that each contains many details and facts which the investigating officers could not have known and could not have supplied, without the knowledge and information given by appellants. Moreover, the appellants were... assisted by their lawyers when they executed their statements. Atty. Mallare testified that Pancho, Jr. and Dequillo executed their statements voluntarily and affixed their signatures after he talked with them alone and informed them of their constitutional rights. Muit, on the other hand, was assisted by counsels in each instance when he executed his two extra judicial confessions; his second statement was even witnessed by his uncle, Bonifacio, and his brother, Dominador. Muit cannot just conveniently disclaim any knowledge of the contents of his extra judicial confession. Nevertheless, in Muit's case, he was also positively identified by Seraspe and Chavez as the one who pointed a gun at them during the kidnapping and ordered them to lay prostrate on the ground. claims of torture are not supported by medical certificates from the physical examinations done on them. These claims of torture were mere afterthoughts as they were raised for the first time during trial; appellants did not even inform. their family members who visited them while they were imprisoned about the alleged tortures. Dequillo, for his part, also had the opportunity to complain of the alleged torture done to him to the Department of Justice when he was brought there. Claims of torture are easily concocted, and cannot be given credence unless substantiated by competent and independent corroborating evidence.

 

 

 

People v. Dionaldo

G.R. No. 207949

July 23, 2014

FACTS:

                At around 8 o'clock in the morning of May 16, 2003, Roderick Navarro dropped his brother Edwin Navarro off at the Health Is Wealth Gym in Caloocan City. Thirty minutes later, he received a text message from another brother who told him that Edwin had been... kidnapped. Records show that 3 men, later identified as Armando, Renato, and Mariano, forcibly dragged a bloodied Edwin down the stairway of the gym and pushed him inside a dark green Toyota car with plate number UKF 194.Upon receiving the message, Roderick immediately reported... the incident to the police. At around 10 o'`1clock in the morning of the same day, he received a phone call from Edwin's kidnappers who threatened to kill Edwin if he should report the matter to the police. The following day, Roderick received another call from the kidnappers, w... ho demanded the payment of ransom money in the amount of P15,000,000.00. Roderick told them he had no such money, as he only had P50,000.00. On May 19, 2003, after negotiations over the telephone, the... kidnappers agreed to release Edwin in exchange for the amount of P110,000.00. Roderick was then instructed to bring the money to Batangas and wait for their next call.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the accused are guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

HELD:

                Yes. Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. -Criminal liability is totally extinguished: By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; In People v. Amistoso,... the Court explained that the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto Consequently, Renato's death... on June 10, 2014 renders the Court's July 23, 2014 Resolution irrelevant and ineffectual as to him, and is therefore set aside. Accordingly, the criminal case against Renato is dismissed.

 

 

Madsali v. People

G.R. No. 179570

February 4, 2010

FACTS:

                 That on or about the 1st day of July, 1994, in Barangay Malitub, Municipality of Bataraza, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating together and helping one another and by means of force, threat, violence and intimidation, while armed with a bladed weapon known as “Badong”, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away one AAA, a girl of 16 years of age, against her will and consent and brought to the forest and on the occasion thereof the said accused by means of force, threat, violence and intimidation, and while armed with a knife, accused SahironLajim, with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with said AAA, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice. The other crime was that on or about the 2nd day of July, 1994 in the morning up to December 15, 1994, at Barangay Malitub, Municipality of Bataraza, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with the use of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and detain AAA, an unmarried woman under 15 years of age in the house of EgapMadsali thereby depriving said AAA of her liberty all against her will and as a result of that illegal detention, said AAA was not able to go home to her mother for a period of more than five (5) months.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellants were guilty for the commission of crime of abduction with rape

HELD:   

(a) In Criminal Case No. 12281, accused SajironLajim and MaronLajim are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and to pay jointly and severally, the offended party AAA, the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages.  Accused SajironLajim is further ordered to support the offspring born as a consequence of the rape.  The amount of support shall be determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing, with support in arrears to be reckoned from the date the appealed decision was promulgated by the trial court; and

                (b) In Criminal Case No. 12309, accused SajironLajim is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

 

 


 

People v. Mirandilla, Jr.

G.R. No. 186417

July 27, 2011

FACTS:

                On Decemer 2, 2000, in the eve of the barangay fiesta, AAA was grabbed with a knife pointed at her thrust by Felipe Mirandilla and was brought to Gallera de Legazpi where she was raped. The morning after, on the same house, Mirandilla pointed a gun at AAA and then forced his penis inside AAA’s mouth. Mirandilla, along with AAA, drove to Bogtong, Legazpi, and reached a nipa hut where AAA was thrown inside and got raped again. The following evening, AAA suffered the same fate. Mirandilla and his gang detained her at daytime, and moved her back and forth from one place to another where she was raped allegedly 27 times. One afternoon, AAA was able to escape and ran to a house of a certain Evelyn Guevarra who brought her to the police station on January 11, 2001. Mirandilla’s contention was that he and AAA were lovers/live-in partners and they eloped. He said that the sexual encounters were consensual.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Mirandilla is guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with rape.

HELD:

Yes. Mirandilla admitted in open court to have had sexual intercourse with AAA, which happened almost nightly during their cohabitation. He contended that they were live-in partners, entangled in a whirlwind romance, which intimacy they expressed in countless passionate sex, which headed ironically to separation mainly because of AAAs intentional abortion of their first child to be a betrayal in its gravest form which he found hard to forgive. In stark contrast to Mirandillas tale of a love affair, is AAAs claim of her horrific ordeal and her flight to freedom after 39 days in captivity during which Mirandilla raped her 27 times.

 

 

 

 

17 comments:

  1. I read the above article and I got some knowledge from your article. It's actually great and useful data for us. Thanks for share it. Best Criminal Defense Lawyer

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd like to express my gratitude for writing such an informative piece on this blog. This article provided me with a variety of data. Continue to post. car accident attorney in bluffton sc

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, What an Excellent post. I really found this to much informative. It is what I was searching for. I would like to suggest you that please keep sharing such type of info. Family lawyer Houston

    ReplyDelete
  4. I found decent information in your article. I am impressed with how nicely you described this subject, It is a gainful article for us.New York personal injury lawyer Thanks for share it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You've created an excellent essay. Your essay gave me some unique and useful information about beaufort criminal lawyer. Thank you for bringing this article to our attention.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great job, this is good information which is shared by you. This information is very meaningful and factual for us to increase our knowledge about it. Always keep sharing this type of information. Thanks. Collection Defense Attorney mn

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very Good, This is excellent information which is shared by you. This information is very meaningful and magnificent for us to increase our knowledge about it. Always keep sharing this kind of information. Thank you. divorce papers

    ReplyDelete
  8. You've written a very useful article about Construction lawyer Sydney. This article provided me with some useful knowledge. Thank you for providing this information. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I found decent information in your article. I am impressed with how nicely you described this subject, It is a gainful article for us. online divorce Thanks for share it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You have done good work by publishing this article here.Document Legalization in Bahrain I found this article too much informative, and also it is beneficial to enhance our knowledge. Grateful to you for sharing an article like this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In order to become an immigration lawyer in India, it is necessary for the interested candidate to attend law school and complete either a five-year integrated course of law, offered by the reputed National Law Universities, government and other private institutions for pursuing law right after the completion of intermediate school (+2 level) or a three-year LLB programmes offered by various prestigious governmental institutions and private colleges after the completion of an undergraduate degree.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am attracted by the info which you have provided in the above post. It is genuinely good and beneficial info for us. Continue posting, Thank you. Real Estate Services Greensburg

    ReplyDelete
  13. All lawyers hope to help their clients, but few do so with the emotional, family law attorneys Boynton Beach. After all, the things often at stake in family law cases—like a child’s welfare or justice for an abused spouse—have a gravitas many other areas of the law cannot match.

    ReplyDelete
  14. At this time, if you can use good medicinal materials and ingredients to strengthen hormones,MCA Attorney will be able to retain your youth and enjoy masculine power.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey friend, it is very well written article, thank you for the valuable and useful information you provide in this post. Keep up the good work! FYI, slice credit card review, The courage to be disliked book pdf free download,5 Lines on Tiger

    ReplyDelete
  16. A very delightful article that you have shared here. Your blog is a valuable and engaging article for us, and also I will share it with my companions who need this info, Criminal Lawyer Chalmette Thankful to you for sharing an article like this.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I just wanted to say that this article, which is about Company Formation in Bahrain, is elegantly written. I learned something from your article, and it's also important for us. I appreciate you sharing this article.

    ReplyDelete