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.
