CRIMINAL LAW 2

Finals Reviewer by K.N SANTOS

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL The boy was allowed to play in the house where
LIBERTY & SECURITY he was kepy but the fact remains that he was
under the control of accused Bravo who left him
there as he could not leave the house until she
KIDNAPPING & SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION
shall have returned for him. Because of his
tender age and the fact that he did not know the
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. – way back home, there is deprivation of liberty.
Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his
liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua Illegal detention is committed as long as there
to death: is deprivation of liberty of the victim in whatever
form and for whatever length of time. However, to
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted
more than three days. consider deprivation of liberty as an element of
consummated illegal detention, there must be an
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public appreciable period of time within which the victim
authority.
was deprived of his liberty.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if The fact that the victim voluntarily went with the
threats to kill him shall have been made. accused did not remove the element of deprivation
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a of liberty. In kidnapping, the victim beed not to be
minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, taken by the accused forcibly or against his
female or a public officer. will. What is controlling is the act of the accused
detaining the victim against his or her will.
The penalty shall be death penalty where the
kidnapping or detention was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any To consider intent to deprive liberty as an element
other person, even if none of the circumstances of illegal detention, the deprivation of liberty must
above-mentioned were present in the commission of not be incidental. There must be indubitable proof
the offense.
of the actual intent of the malefcator. i f the
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of deprivation of liberty is just incidental to the
the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or commission of the crime, the latter absorbs illegal
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be
detention.
imposed.

Kidnapping, serious illegal detention, and slight PEOPLE vs ASTOR

illegal detention are crimes against liberty. There FACTS: The accused barged inside the Legazpi Miki
are two indispensable elements: Factory with pulled handguns and grenades. Upon
1. Deprivation of the liberty of the victim gaining entry, they closed the door and threatened all
2. Intent to deprive liberty the twenty one innocent people caught inside. They
ordered the wife of the factory owner to open the cash
There is deprivation of liberty if a child is left in a register and give them the money. However, before
place from which she did not know her way back they could leave the premises after the commission of
the robbery, the police authorities were already at the
home even if she had the freedom to roam around
scene of the crime and there was no way out for the
the place of detention.
robbers. Hence, they detained all the people therein
and threatened to kill the hostages. The authorities the continued detention of AAA after the rape cannot
negotiated with robbers and acceded to their demands be deemed absorbed in it. Likewise, since the
for the release of the hostages. Through the vehicle detention continued after the rape had been
provided, the accused sped away and the hostages completed, it cannot be deemed a necessary means
were saved after 22 hours. The RTC held that the for the crime of rape. Thus, the Supreme Court held
accused-appellants are guilty doubt of the crimes of that Bernie Concepcion is guilty of two counts of the
robbery and serious illegal detention. crime of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC and is
guilty of the crime of slight illegal detention under
RULING: Were the appellants themselves not trapped Article 268 of the RPC.
by the early arrival of the police at the scene of the
crime, they would have not anymore detained the
people inside since they have already completed their The victim’s lack of consent is also fundamental
job. Obviously, appellants were left with no choice but element of kidnapping. The involuntariness of the
to resort to detention of these people as security, until seizure and detention is the very essence of the
arrangements for their safe passage were made. This crime. The prosecution is burdened to prove a lack
is not the crime of illegal detention punishable under of consent on the part of the victim. However,
the penal laws, but an act of restraint in order to delay where the victim is minor, lack of consent is
the pursuit of the criminals by peace officers. Where presumed.
the victims in a robbery case were detained in the
course of robbery, the detention is absorbed by the
crime of robbery. In the case at bar, the detention was Arbitrary Detention
only incidental to the main crime of robbery.
Therefore, appellants should only be held guilty of
Article 267 requires that the offender is a private
robbery. The appellants are acquitted in the case for
individual because when the offender is a public
serious illegal detention.
officer it will be arbitrary detention. But the public
officer must have a duty under the law to detain a
PEOPLE vs CONCEPCION person such as policeman or soldier.

FACTS: AAA and her common-law husband lived Illegally arresting a person despite lack of
rent-free in a house owned by the accused probable cause is arbitrary detention. However,
Concepcion. When AAA arrived home, Concepcion
arbitrary detention can only be committed by public
was at the gate drunk. He held a knife to her back and
officers in pursuit of their duty to arrest.
dragged her to his room then proceeded to raped her.
Shortly after, the police arrived asking for the release
of AAA. Concepcion made several demands to the But if the police officer arrested the victim for
police which they complied but AAA was still not purposes of extorting money, the crime committed
released. He proceeded to raped AAA again while is either robbery or kidnapping for ransom with the
holding a knife to her neck. The police then decided to special aggravating circumstance of taking
forcibly entered Concepcion's room, breaking the advantage of public position.
window and the door and successfully got AAA out.
The RTC found Concepcion guilty of the complex
crime of forcible abduction with rape. On appeal, the Special Complex Crime
CA ruled that the crime of rape absorbed the forcible
abduction. Thus, the Concepcion is found guilty of the Rules on Special Complex Crime of
crime of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC.
Kidnapping with Homicide, Murder or Rape:
1. Original Design
RULING: AAA testified and narrated two separate
incidents of rape and this Court finds that the evidence ● To be held liable for a special
was sufficient to establish accused-appellant's guilt of complex crime it is indispensible that
the second rape charge. Although the initial abduction the original design of the accused is
of AAA may have been absorbed by the crime of rape, to commit the principal component
thereof.
 PEOPLE vs MIRANDILLA and thereafter with abuse of superior strength and
evident premeditation hacked and clubbed the
FACTS: A man grabbed AAA’s hand and wrapped his Richard who thereby sustained mortal wounds which
arm on her shoulders, with a knife’s point thrust at her directly caused his death. The trial court found both of
right side when she was walking her way back to the the accused guilty of kidnapping with murder.
plaza. Another man joined and went beside her, while
two others stayed at her back, one of whom had a RULING: The circumstances of the case showed
gun. After a four-hour walk, they boarded a tricycle beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants
and brought AAA inside a concrete house. Therein, are indeed guilty of kidnapping with murder and that
AAA was raped and sexually asaulted. They they both conspired to kill the victim. The positive
repeatedly detained her during the daytime and then identification by the witnesses prevails over the alibi
moved her back and forth from one place to another and denial of the accused. By placing the victim in an
on the following nights. She was allegedly raped 27 enclosed place consisting of the luggage compartment
times until she was able to escape. In the police of the car, they detained or otherwise deprived him of
station, AAA positively identified the accused as his liberty. There was also actual restraint of the
Felipe Mirandilla, Jr. The accused was charged before victim's liberty when he was taken at gunpoint from
the Regional Trial Court with kidnapping with rape, Pasig to accused-appellants' apartment in Tanay. The
four counts of rape, and rape through sexual assault. evidence proves that Mercado initiated the kidnapping
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the of the victim. Acebron's subsequent loading of the
RTC ruling. It found him guilty of the special complex victim into the car's compartment after tying the latter
crime of kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape, shows community of criminal purpose with Mercado. It
and one count of rape by sexual assault. does not matter whether there are circumstances
qualifying the killing as murder. Under the last
RULING: The Supreme Court find Mirandilla guilty of paragraph of Article 267, it is sufficient that the victim
the special complex crime of kidnapping and is "killed or dies as a consequence of the detention."
illegal detention with rape. Evidently, Mirandilla Hence, even if there is a qualifying circumstance of
kidnapped AAA, held her in detention for 39 days and treachery, the accused is still guilty of the crime of
carnally abused her while holding a gun and/or a kidnapping with murder.
knife. AAA was able to prove each element of rape
and sexual assault under Article 266-A, par. 1 & 2 of ● However, in the special complex
the Revised Penal Code. Likewise, kidnapping and
crime of kidnapping with murder
serious illegal detention is proven under Article 267 of
or homicide, the original design of
the RPC. The last paragraph of Article 267 states that
when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of
the accused is not material because
the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or of the mercado principle. The
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be accused is liable for a special
imposed. This provision gives rise to a special complex crime of kidnapping with
complex crime. Hence, in the present case, there is murder or homicide as long as the
only one crime committed – the special complex crime victim is killed in the course of the
of kidnapping with rape. detention; regardless whether it is
purposely sought or just an
afterthought.
PEOPLE vs MERCADO
2. Victim of Homicide
FACTS: SPO2 Elpidio Mercado and SPO1 Aurelio ● In rape with homicide, the victim of
Acebron of the Philippine National Police of Tanay, homicide can be a person other than
Rizal conspired and aid one another in kidnapping the victim of rape.
Richard Buama, a 17 year old minor and Florencio ● In robbery with homicide, the
Villareal boarded them in a Red car against their will victim can be a bystander, a
thus depriving them of their freedom of liberty. They responding police officer, or even a
brought him to Tanay, Rizal in a safe house and there
co-robber.
subjected Richard to extreme/brutal physical violence,
 ● However, in kidnapping with RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of
homicide, it must be the victim who the trial court. On the first offense, there is the
is killed as a consequence of the presence of aggravating circumstances of nighttime
detention. If not the victim, it will be a and dwelling considering that nighttime facilitated the
separate crime. commission of the crime and the accused-appellants
3. Multiple Kidnappings took advantage of the darkness to successfully
● In robbery, if the accused is consummate their plans while dwelling is clear from
motivated by a single criminal the abuse of confidence which the victims reposed in
the offenders by opening the door to them, as well as
impulse to rob a particular place,
the violation of the sanctity of privacy in the victims'
they are only liable for one count of
homes. There is also the presence of aggravating
robbery although there are several circumstance of band for the first and second crimes.
victims because of the delito It is indubitable that there was conspiracy in the
continuado principle. commission of the crimes in both Criminal Cases.
● In a special complex crime of Because of the findings of conspiracy,
robbery with homicide or rape, it accused-appellants are jointly and severally liable.
is immaterial that two or more
persons are killed/rapped. Even if ●
In kidnapping, there are as many
there are four victims raped or killed criminal impulses on the part of the
on the occassion of robbery, the accused as there are kidnapped
accused are only liable for a single victims. Since the accused in
count of the special complex crime. kidnapping several victims are
motivated by several criminal
PEOPLE vs PATALIN impulses, the principle of delito
continuado is not applicable.
FACTS: Accused-appellants Alex Mijaque and Alfonso
4. Murder as a Comonent
Patalin, Jr, were charged with the crime of robbery
when they took advantage of nighttime and dwelling to
● A special complex crime is
steal and carry away with them P700 total of cash and committed when by reason or on
personal property from the victims. By reason or on the occasion of the rape/robbery,
the occasion of said Robbery, the accused inflicted homicide is committed. Hence,
wounds which required medical attendance of more there is no special complex crime of
than thirty days to Reynaldo Aliman, as well as robbery/raper with murder.
physical injuries to the other victims Corazon Aliman ● There is a special complex crime
and Josephine Belesario which required medical of kidnapping when the victim is
attendance for several days. In a Second Amended
killed or dies as a consequence of
Information, accused-appellants Alex Mijaque, Alfonso
detention. Killing in this sense may
Patalin, Jr., and Nestor Ras were charged with the
crime of robbery with multiple rape when they
constitute homicide or murder.
conspired with three others who are still at large,
performing themselves into a band, entered the NOTES:
dwelling of Jesusa Carcillar, and once inside, with Delito Continuado Principle
intent to gain and with violence, steal and carry away - continuing offense consists of a series of
with them P6,500 total of cash and personal property acts arising from one criminal intent or
and on the occasion thereof, have sexual intercourse resolution
with Perpetua Carcillar, Juliana Carcillar, Rogelia - there should be a plurality of acts
Carcillar, and Josephine Belesario, against their will performed during a period of time
and consent. The RTC rendered a judgement finding - unity of penal provision violated and unity
the accused guilty of Robbery with Physical Injuries of criminal intent or purpose
for the first complaint and Robbery with Multiple
Rapes for the second complaint.
 RULING: All the elements of forcible abduction were
proved in this case. The evidence likewise shows that
the taking of the young victim against her will was
done in furtherance of lewd designs. However,
although the prosecution has proved that Lenie was
sexually abused, the evidence proffered is inadequate
to establish carnal knowledge. In the case at bar,
there is no evidence of entrance or introduction of the
male organ into the labia of the pudendum. Lenie's
testimony did not establish that there was penetration
by the sex organ of the accused or that he tried to
penetrate her. The sexual abuse which
accused-appellant forced upon Lenie constitutes the
lewd design inherent in forcible abduction and is thus
absorbed therein. The indecent molestation cannot
form the other half of a complex crime since the
record does not show that the principal purpose of the
accused was to commit any of the crimes against
chastity and that her abduction would only be a
necessary means to commit the same. Wherefore, the
accused-appellant is instead declared guilty of
Forcible Abduction only.

Kidnapping and Attempted Rape

Kidnapping and Rape ➢ Where the accused kidnapped the victim,
not for the purpose of raping her but the
Forcible Abduction accused subsequently attempted to rape
➢ Where the accused kidnapped the victim for her as an afterthought, two separate
the purpose of raping her, but he failed to crimes are committed.
consummate the rape, the crime ➢ It is not a complex crime because the two
committed is forcible abduction. crimes were not produced by a single act
➢ The attempted rape is just an external and the detention is not committed as
manifestation of lewd design, which is an means to rape the victim.
element of of forcible abdution, the latter Rape or Complex Crime of Rape through
absorbs the former. Forcible Abduction
➢ Where the accused kidnapped the victim
PEOPLE vs EGAN for purposes of raping her and she was
FACTS: Lito Egan (36), was an avid admirer of a girl
in fact raped, the accused is liable for
named Lenie Camad (12). When Lenie and her cousin either rape or complex crime of rape
were fetching water, the accused appeared from through forcible abduction
nowhere and forcibly dragged and pushed Lenie ➢ If forcible abduction is an indispensible
towards Sitio Dalag. He threatened to kill her if she means to commit rape, the latter absorbs
resisted. The accused Lito Egan forced Lenie to the former. Hence, the crime committed is
escort him to Sitio Sayawan still threatening to kill her only rape.
if she shouted or resisted, and there stayed in the
house of a sister of Lito. It was in this place where PEOPLE vs MEJORADA
under the cover of darkness and desolation he
allegedly raped Lenie. The trial court convicted him of FACTS: Mrs. Elizabeth Regino, a public school
forcible abduction with rape. teacher was sleeping at their house when at about
11:40 in the evening, she noticed that somebody
forcibly opened the door. Believing that the person
Special Complex Crime of
who went inside was her husband, she stood up in Kidnapping with Rape
order to switch on the light. Before she reached the ➢ Where the accused kidnapped the victim
light, she was hugged by the person and a knife was not for the purpose of raping her but the
pressed on her face. The accused pressed her accused subsequently rape her as an
downward and forced her in going out of their house. afterthought, the accused is liable for the
She was brought to the back of their house and there special complex crime of kidnapping with
she was forcibly raped by the accused. The trial court rape.
held the accused guilty of rape.
One night, two american soldiers forcibly take
RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision two Filipino hostesses from Angeles, Pampanga
but held that the trial court should have appreciated and brought them inside Clark Air Base. Once
against the accused the aggravating circumstances of inside the base, they are taken to a dance, but
dwelling and ignominy which, though not alleged in finding the hall too crowded they immediately
the information, were duly proven without objection on proceed to the soldier’s quarters where the girls
the part of the accused. The accused defiled the was raped.
sanctity of Mrs. Regino's home by forcibly opening its
door. Such aggravating circumstances would have There is no showing that the americans abducted
justified the imposition of the greater penalty. the hostesses for purposes of raping them. Rape
was committed as an afterthought. Hence, they
➢ If forcible abduction is a necessary means are liable for special complex crime of kidnapping
to commit rape, the accused is liable for a with rape.
complex crime of rape through forcible
abduction.
Kidnapping and Homicide/Murder
PEOPLE vs CARAANG
Complex Crime of Attempted or
FACTS: The group of the victims were on their way
Frustrated Murder through Kidnapping
home when they were accosted by two armed men
➢ Where the accused kidnapped the victim
wearing bonnets. Brandishing their guns, the men
ordered the group to follow them into an uninhabited
for the purpose of killing him and then
and grassy place. There they raped Vanelyn Flores he tried to kill him, a complex crime of
and Lorna Salazar. The RTC was convinced beyond attempted or frustrated murder through
reasonable doubt that appellant and his cohorts had kidnapping is committed. In this case,
conspired in abducting the victims and eventually kidnapping was a necessary means to
raping them. The RTC convicted the accused of the commit attempted or frustrated murder.
complex crime of abduction with rape, two counts
of rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness. Kidnapping and Attempted/Frustrated Murder
➢ Where the accused kidnapped the victim
RULING: The appeal of the rape charges is
not for the purpose of killing him but he
unmeritorious; however, the alleged acts of
lasciviousness have not been proven beyond
subsequently tried to kill him as an
reasonable doubt. There is no doubt that appellant afterthought, two separate crimes of
and his co-accused acted in conspiracy, as seen kidnapping and attempted/frustrated murder
through their concerted actions in abducting the are committed
victims with lewd design and later on raping them. The
prosecution also sufficiently proved the elements of Kidnapping and Homicide or Murder
forcible abduction. Hence, appellant is guilty of two ➢ Whether the killing was purposely sought or
complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape. the killing was just an afterthought if the
Since there were two victims, the trial court erred in
victim is killed in the course of the
convicting him of only one count of the complex crime
detention, the crime committed is a
of forcible abduction with rape.
special complex crime.
 Appreciable Period of Detention
Kidnapping, Rape, and Homicide/Murder
➢ Kidnapping is a crime against liberty hence,
there must be an appreciable period of
If the accused kidnapped the victim, raped her, and time within which the victim was
then killed her, the accused is liable for the special deprived of liberty.
complex crime of kidnapping with homicide.
Whether the killing was purposely sought or the PEOPLE vs LORA
killing was just an afterthought, if the victim is
killed in the course of the detention, the crime FACTS: Accused Belind Lora is the housemaid of
spouses Yap whose duties were to wash clothes and
committed is a special complex crime of
to look after their son Oliver who was 3 years old.
kidnapping with homicide. With respect to rape, it
When Mrs. Yap returned home from the market, she
shall be considered a component of this special found her mother-in-law and her husband panicking
complex crime. because their son and their maid were missing. They
found a ransom note at the stairway which states that
PEOPLE vs LARRANAGA Oliver was to be sold to a couple because she needed
money for her mother's hospitalization. The accused
FACTS: The trial court found the seven appellant
asked for money in exchange for their son but when
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of
the money was delivered, their son was nowhere to be
kidnapping and serious illegal detention for
found. Until they noticed a blood was dripping from
confederating and mutually helping with one another
their ceiling and when they went up to upstairs which
in kidnaping Marijoy Chiong and on the occasion
was utilized as a bodega, they found their son placed
thereof had carnal knowledge of her against her will
inside a carton and was already dead. When arrested,
with the use of force and intimidation and subsequent
the accused claims that she did not intend to kill the
thereto inflicted physical injuries on her, thrown her
child. On the basis of the plea of guilt of the defendant
into a deep ravine which resulted to her death.
and the evidence of the prosecution, the court
Likewise, they also kidnap Jacqueline Chiong whose
convicted the defendant with complex crime of
whereabouts remain unknown and unsolved.
serious illegal detention with murder.
RULING: The Supreme Court hold that all the
RULING: The Supreme Court held that the crime
appellants are guilty of the special complex crime of
actually committed is not the complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
kidnapping with murder but the simple crime of
homicide and rape in the case of Marijoy while
murder qualified by treachery. The demand for
simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention in
ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping
the case of Jacqueline considering that the
with murder. The defendant was well aware that the
prosecution was able to prove each of the component
child would be suffocated to death in a few moments
offenses. There is a direct relation between the
after she left. The demand for ransom is only a part of
kidnapping, killing and raping of Marijoy, rape cannot
the diabolic scheme of the defendant to murder the
be considered merely as an aggravating circumstance
child, to conceal his body and then demand money
but as a component offense.
before the discovery of the cadaver. There is
treachery because the victim is only a 3-year old child.
The commission of the offense was attended with the
Mercado Principle
aggravating circumstances of lack of respect due to
the age of the victim, cruelty and abuse of confidence.
Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course
of the detention, regardless of whether the killing
Incidental Deprivation of Liberty
was purposely sought or was merely an
➢ If the intention of the accused is only to kill
afterthought, the accused is liable for the
the victim and the deprivation of liberty is
special complex crime of kidnapping with murder,
just incidental to such killing, the Mercado
or kidnapping with homicide, or kidnapping for
principle is not applicable; hence, the
ransom with homicide, or kidnapping with homicide
crime committed is murder and not
and rape.
kidnapping with murder.
 ➢ The detention is considered as incidental if ➢ The detention is also considered incidental
the same merely arises from the if the same merely arises from the
transportation of the victim to the place transportation of the victim from one place
where he shall be executed. to another to evade police authorities.

PEOPLE vs JIMENEZ PEOPLE vs WONG

FACTS: Agents of the Narcotics Division of the FACTS: Victor Ng harbored such bitter hatred against
National Bureau of Investigation, went to raid a the victim, Mariano Lim, whom he considered as his
marijuana plantation. It turned out that the plantation rival for the affections of Ruby. Thus, Victor contacted
was being protected by a notorious bandit who shared his classmate, Gerry Dejungco, to play a leading role
with its owner the sales of marijuana. Upon being in the commission of the crime he wanted committed.
tipped that NBI agents were in the vicinity poised to It was Dejungco who arranged for the execution of the
raid the plantation, Manecio alerted and gathered his hideous plot upon Ng's offer to pay the sum of P2,000
men in preparation for an encounter with the raiding for the job. The appellants and their co-accused
team; among the group were the accused. Agents successfully killed Mariano. Hence, the lower court
Domingo and Dayao decided to conduct further found them guilty of murder.
investigation and surveillance on their own and had
left the plantation, however, they were ultimately RULING: There is no question that the clear manifest
captured by the group of Manecio. The two agents intention of the appellants was to kill the victim and the
died from multiple gunshot wounds on the head and kidnapping of the victim merely incidental to the
different parts of the body and were found at the pit of principal purpose. The circumstance of treachery
a dry creek. The agents had been divested of their cannot be applied to victor since he was not actually
shirts, firearms and personal belongings. The trial present when the crime was committed, having
court convicted them of the crime of Kidnapping with actually left to his co-accused the means for the
Murder with Direct Assault Upon Agents of a commission of the crime. Since the evidence disclose
Person-in Authority. that he induced the others to commit the crime for a
price or promise of reward, he is a principal by
RULING: The crime committed is Murder with Direct induction. Wherefore. the judgment of the court a quo
Assault upon Agents of a Person in Authority. It is not is hereby affirmed.
the complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder,
kidnapping not having been a necessary means to
commit the murder. The NBI agents were taken by the Demand for Ransom after Committing Murder
accused solely for the purpose of killing them and not ➢ If the crime committed is murder, the
for detaining them illegally for any length of time or for demand for ransom after killing the victim
the purpose of obtaining ransom for their release. The will not convert the crime from murder to
main purpose of the accused was to kill the agents, kidnapping for ransom with murder.
their forcible taking having been only incidental to the ➢ Since the victim is already dead, the
killing. It was not the purpose of the accused to accused cannot anymore use deprivation of
commit the crime of Illegal Detention. While band is liberty as a mode of asking for ransom
also present, it is deemed absorbed by treachery. No
payment. A dead body has no liberty that
mitigating circumstances exist. Appellants should be
the accused can deprive of.
convicted of two complex crimes of Murder with
Direct Assault upon Agents of a Person in
Authority because there were two victims killed by Kidnapping for Ransom
means of separate acts.

➢ In Mercado, deprivation of liberty is not In kidnapping or serious illegal detention for

incidental. In Jimenez, the deprivation of ransom, the purpose of extorting ransom is a
liberty is incidental since the victims were qualifying circumstance which must be alleged in
merely transported to the place where they the information and proved by the prosecution.
will be killed.
Ransom mean in its ordinary sense as money,
price, or consideration paid or demanded for the RULING: The two-year-old Christopher suddenly
redemption of a captured person or persons, a disappeared and was recovered only after almost 16
payment that releases from captivity. months from Taurak and Mamantak. The boy was kept
away from his mother, he was certainly deprived or
Whether or not the ransom is actually paid to or restrained of his liberty. Taurak unlawfully kept the
received by the perpetrators is of no moment. It child under her control and custody and even brought
is sufficient that the kidnapping was committed for him to Lanao del Norte. She demanded ₱30,000 in
exchange for his return to his mother. Mamantak’s
the purpose of exacting ransom.
action showed without doubt that she was aiding her
sister and was acting in concert with her. Wherefore,
While receipt of the ransom money was not a the appeal is denied and appellants are hereby found
material element of the crime, it was nevertheless guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
proof. Hence, the receipient is liable as principal. kidnapping for ransom.

If the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for

the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
detention becomes inconsequential.
Article 268. Slight illegal detention. - The penalty of
No specific from of ransom is required to reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any private
individual who shall commit the crimes described in
consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom the next preceding article without the attendance of
as long as the ransom is intented as a bargaining any of circumstances enumerated therein.
chip in exchange for the victim’s freedom. The
amount of and purpose for the ransom are The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who
shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the
immaterial. crime.

PEOPLE vs MAMANTAK If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so

kidnapped or detained within three days from the
FACTS: Teresa went with her son Christopher and her commencement of the detention, without having
elder sister Zenalda to eat; when Christopher followed attained the purpose intended, and before the
Zenalda to the counter, he disappeared. A muslim institution of criminal proceedings against him, the
woman called teresa saying that she have custody of penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven
her child, she was shown a latest picture of him, and
hundred pesos.
later on asked for ₱30,000 in exchange for the boy.
Teresa was instructed to go to Mindanao together with
the ransom money; Teresa then sought the help of the Slight illegal detention is committed by a private
Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force. At the individual who kidnaps or detains another, or in
agreed meet up place, Teresa was approached by the any other manner deprives him of his liberty
accused Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad without the attendance of any of the
Sarapida Taurak. They informed them that she had circumstances that will qualify the crime into
Christopher and Teresa demand that he be handed
kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
there at the carinderia. Later on, Taurak came back
with Christopher. However, he no longer recognized
nor understood her for he could only speak in the It is indispensible that:
muslim dialect. When asked who he was, the boy 1. The detention has not lasted for more than
gave a muslim name with "Taurak" as surname. three days
Mamantak and Taurak interrupted Teresa and 2. The victim is not a minor, female, or a public
demanded the ransom money. When the money was offcier
given, they were arrested by the PAOCTF team. The 3. There is neither simulation of public
lower court rendered a judgment finding both accused authorurt nor seriorous physical injuries, nor
guilty of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom. threat to kill
If the accused deprived the victim of liberty for an If a person arrested another person with legal
appreciable period of time and the deprivation of ground, he is not committing a crime since the
liberty is not just incidental to the commission of apprehension is made in accordance with the law.
other crimes, he is liable for illegal detention. However, if the arrest is without legal ground, the
person who arrested is liable for arbitrary detention
Three Kinds of Illegal Detention: or unlawful arrest.
1. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
2. Slight illegal detention
3. Unlawful arrest
In kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the
detention must have lasted for more than three
days. If the detention lasted for exactly three
days, the crime is not kidnapping and serious
illegal detention but slight illegal detention in
the absence of other qualifying circumstance. The
presence of any other qualifying circumstances will
make the crime kidnapping and serious illegal
detention regardless of the duration of detention.

If the victim is a minor, the duration of his detention

is immaterial. Also, if the victim is kidnapped and
illegally detained for the purpose of extorting
ransom, the duration of his detention becomes
inconsequential.

The voluntary release of the person locked up

is not an exempting circumstance in slight
illegal detention but it is just an attenuating
circumstance. However, such voluntary release
cannot be appreciated in kidnapping and serious
illegal detention but only in slight illegal detention.

UNLAWFUL ARREST

Article 269. Unlawful arrest. - The penalty of arresto

mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, in any case other than
those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground
therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the
purpose of delivering him to the proper
authorities.

An arrest is the taking of a person into custody in

order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense. There need not be an
actual restraint for curtailment of liberty to be
characterized as an arrest.