Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Title 9 - Liberty and Security

Title 9 - Liberty and Security

Ratings: (0)|Views: 558|Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Sui on Jun 14, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Chapter One. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTYSection One – Illegal DetentionArticle 267.Kidnapping and serious illegaldetentionArticle 268. Slight illegal DetentionArticle 269. Unlawful arrestSection Two – Kidnapping of MinorsArticle 270. Kidnapping and failure to return aminorArticle 271. Inducing a minor to abandon hishomeSection Three – Slavery and servitudeArticle 272. SlaveryArticle 273. Exploitation of Child LaborArticle 274. Service rendered under compulsioninpayment of debtChapter Two – CRIMES AGAINST SECURITYSection One – Abandonment of helpless personsandexploitation of minorsArticle 275. Abandonment of persons in dangerandabandonment of one’s own victimArticle 276. Abandoning a minorArticle 277. Abandonment of minor by personentrusted with his custody; indifference of parentsArticle 278. Exploitation of minorsArticle 279. Additional penalties for otheroffensesSection Two – Trespass to dwellingArticle 280. Qualified trespass to dwellingArticle 281. Other forms of trespassSection Three – Threats and CoercionArticle 282. Grave threatsArticle 283. Light threatsArticle 284. Bond for good behaviorArticle 285. Other light threatsArticle 286. Grave coercionsArticle 287. Light coercionsArticle 288. Other similar coercions (compulsorypurchase of merchandise and payment of wages by means of tokens)Article 289. Formation, maintenance andprohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence orthreatsChapter Three – DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OFSECRETSArticle 290. Discovering secrets through seizureof correspondenceArticle 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of officeArticle 292. Revelation of industrial secrets
Article 267. Kidnapping and seriousillegal detention
Elements:1.Offender is a private individual;2.He kidnaps or detains another, or in anyother manner deprives the latter of hisliberty;3.The act of detention or kidnapping must beillegal;4.In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:a.The kidnapping lasts for morethan 3 days;b.It is committed simulatingpublic authority;c.Any serious physical injuriesare inflicted upon the personkidnapped or detained or threats to killhim are made; ord.The person kidnapped ordetained is a minor, female, or a publicofficer.
If the offender is a publicofficer, the crime is arbitrary detention. The public officer must have a duty underthe law to detain a person to be liable forarbitrary detention. If he has no such duty,and he detains a person, he is liable underthis article.
When the victim is a minor andthe accused is one of the parents, thepenalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine notexceeding 300 pesos or both (Article 271,par. 2)
 The essential element of kidnapping is the
deprivation of theoffended party’s liberty
under any of the four instances enumerated. But whenthe kidnapping was committed for thepurpose of extorting ransom, it is notnecessary that one or any of circumstancesenumerated be present.
When the kidnapping is donefor the purpose of extorting ransom fromthe victim or any other person, actualdemand for ransom is not necessary, aslong as it can be proven that thekidnapping was done for the purpose of extorting ransom.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer94
It is essential in the crime of illegal detention that there be actualconfinement or restriction of the person of the offended party.
Not necessary that the victimbe placed in an enclosure, as long as he isdeprived,
in any manner
, of his liberty.
Detention is illegal when notordered by competent authority or notpermitted by law.
Special Complex Crime oKidnapping with murder – when the victimis killed or dies as a consequence of thedetention, the maximum penalty (death)shall be imposed.
Where the victim is taken fromone place to another solely for the purposeof killing him, the crime committed ismurder.
Maximum penalty is imposed inthe ff. cases:
If the purpose of detention is toextort ransom
When the victim is killed ordies as a consequence of the detention
When the victim is raped
When the victim is subjected totorture or dehumanizing acts.
Conspiracy to extort ransommakes all the conspirators liable under thisarticle, including those who did not takepart in the money.
Illegal detentionArbitrary detention
Committed by a privateindividual, whounlawfully deprives aperson of his libertyCommitted by a publicofficer or employee, whodetains a person withoutlegal groundCrime against personallibertyCrime against thefundamental laws of thestate
People vs. Tomio
A Japanese national named Tomio was arrested after beingimplicated for possessing marijuana. Two other Japaneseclaimed that they paid money for Tomio’s release and sothey held Tomio under their custody, asking for the amountthey allegedly advance to the police.HELD: Even if the two accused only wanted to recover themoney they allegedly advanced to the police, the crime isstill kidnapping because of the essential element of deprivation of liberty.
People vs. Mercado
The accused held a knife against his girlfriend’s sister fornearly five hours. The victim’s ordeal ended only after thebarangay captain was able to subdue the accused.HELD: The crime is kidnapping because the victim wasactually restrained or deprived of her liberty,notwithstanding the fact that the accused only wanted thevictim to produce her.
People vs. Del Socorro
Del Socorro grabbed a little girl and brought the child to adoctor, asking for 700 pesos in return. The doctor gave thechild to her spinster aunt.HELD: The defense that the child voluntarily went with theaccused is belied by the fact that the child openly resistedthe abduction and even had to be carried to the jeep.
People vs. Lim
Lim took in two young girls who were loitering in front of her sari-sari store. Lim sent the younger girl to Cebu whilethe older girl stayed in the store. Days later, the girlsfather arrived to bring the two girls back with him.HELD: There is no kidnapping in this case because the twominors voluntarily entered Lim’s residence and there wasno showing that there was actual confinement orrestriction of the person of the offended party. Both girlswere free to go in and out of the store.
People vs. Padica
A 14-year old boy was brought to a sugarcane plantation,where he was shot and killed immediately. The accuseddemanded ransom soon after.HELD: Where the evident purpose of taking the victim wasto kill him, and from the acts of the accused it cannot beinferred that the latter’s purpose was to actually detain ordeprive the victim of his liberty, the subsequent killing of the victim did not constitute the crime of murder. Thedemand for ransom did not convert the crime intokidnapping since no deprivation of liberty was involved.
People vs. Luartes
Luartes kidnapped a 3-yr old girl outside Isettan Recto. Thegirl was in the mall with her mother, who lost her. Luartes’defense was that he was merely helping the lost girl findher mother. He says he had no intention of kidnappingJunichi and that the prosecution witnesses (police officers)merely misconstrued his actuations.HELD: If indeed accused-appellant was trying to help thelost child, why then did he misrepresent himself as heruncle? And, if his intention was only to help the child lookfor her mother, why did he have to board a passengerjeepney taking the child with him?The essence of kidnapping under Art. 267 is the actualdeprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the intentof the accused to effect it. The crime in this case clearlycomes under par. 4 of Art. 267 of the Penal Code. Thedetention was committed by Luartes who was a privateindividual and the person kidnapped was a three (3)-yearold minor.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer95
People vs. Pavillare
Pavillare was convicted of kidnapping an Indian nationaland sentenced to death. He argues that he should havebeen convicted of simple robbery only and not kidnappingwith ransom because the evidence proves that their primemotive was to obtain money and that the complainant wasdetained only for two hours.HELD: The pretense that the money was supposedly inexchange for the dropping of the charges for rape is notsupported by the evidence. The accused released thecomplainant when the money was handed over to him andafter counting the money, he and his companionsimmediately left the scene. This clearly indicated that thepayment of the ransom money is in exchange for the libertyof the private complainant.The duration of the detention even if only for a few hoursdoes not alter the nature of the crime committed. Thecrime of kidnapping is committed by depriving the victim of liberty whether he is placed in an enclosure or simplyrestrained from going home. As squarely expressed inArticle 267, above-quoted the penalty of death isimposable where the detention is committed for thepurpose of extorting ransom, and the duration of thedetention is not material.
People vs. Ballenas
Accused Ballenas pointed a short firearm to Wilma andConsorcia inside their home. Accused told Wilma toaccompany him to Maria his girlfriend. Wilma refused, asthey were about to eat supper. Consorcia also told herdaughter, Wilma not to go out because it was already dark.Accused Ballenas forced Wilma to go out with him. Becauseof the abduction, Consorcia sought the help of a neighbor,Andres but to no avail, as Andres shut the door on her forfear of Ballenas as the latter is known as a member of thedreaded Sparrow Unit of the NPA.The following morning, Consorcia reported the abduction of Wilma to her son-in-law who is a member of the IntegratedNational Police. She learned from Aurelio that Wilma wasalready dead. The police then proceeded to the scene of the incident. Ballenas was found guilty of forcibleabduction with rape and sentenced to Reclusion perpetua.HELD: BALLENAS committed the crime of forcibleabduction with rape on March 20, 1987, before the passageof Republic Act 7659 or the Heinous Crimes Law that tookeffect on December 31, 1993. At the time that BALLENAScommitted the crime of forcible abduction with rape, thepenalty then applicable was reclusion perpetua to death.The use by BALLENAS of a firearm in committing the crime,a fact duly alleged in the information and proven in court,should have warranted the imposition of the death penalty.However, since the crime took place prior to theimplementation of RA 7659, the trial court correctly ruledthat the penalty that can be imposed on BALLENAS isreclusion perpetua. Hence, despite the presence of theaggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty herein of reclusion perpetua would not be affected. Under Article 63of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusionperpetua should be applied regardless of any mitigating oraggravating circumstance that may have attended thecommission of a crime.
People v. Silongan, 401 SCRA 459 (2003)
FACTS: Businessman Alexander Saldaña went toIsulan, Sultan Kudarat with Rejuso, Tormis, and Cinco tomeet with Macapagal Silongan alias Commander Lambadaconcerning the gold nuggets that were purportedly beingsold by the latter. During the meeting Macapagal told themthat someone in his family has just died and that he has topick up an elder brother in hence, they had better transactbusiness in the afternoon. In the afternoon, Alexander’sgroup and Macapagal, with Teddy and Oteng both surnamedSilongan, traveled to fetch Macapagal’s brother.Afterwards, the group returned to Isulan on Macapagal’sorders. At Isulan, Macapagal gave additional instructions towait until dark allegedly because the funeral arrangementsfor his relative were not yet finished. When the groupfinally got on their way, Macapagal who was earlier busytalking over his hand-held radio with someone in theMaguindanaoan dialect ordered the driver to drive slowlytowards the highway. Oteng and his bodyguards alightedsomewhere long the way. As they neared the highway,Macapagal ordered the driver to stop. Suddenly, 15 armedmen appeared. Alexander and his 3 companions wereordered to go out of the vehicle, tied up, and blindfolded.Macapagal and Teddy were also tied up and blindfolded,but nothing more was done to them. The 4 were taken to amountain hideout. After much haggling twelve millionpesos was demanded from Alexander for his release, Theymade Alexander write a letter to his wife to pay theransom which was hand-carried by a certain Jafar, aliasDante, and two of the victims, Tormis and Cinco, who bothlater managed to escape. No ransom was obtained so otherpersons were sent and one of the victims, Rejuso torenegotiate with Alexander’s wife. No agreement waslikewise reached. Seven days later, Alexander and Rejusowere transferred to the town proper and was guarded themby several men. When the kidnappers learned that themilitary was looking for Alexander, they returned to themountain hideout and stayed there for two weeks.At one time, Alexander Saldaña was made to stayat a river hideout where a certain Commander Kugta heldhim and sheltered his abductors for at least a week. There,Alexander saw Macapagal with Manap and other armedmen. These men brought Alexander to different places andwas made to write more letters to his family. All in allappellant was detained for a total of 6 months. Saldañawas later released to the military in exchange for a relativeof one of the abductors who was caught delivering aransom note to Alexander’s family.HELD: The essence of the crime of kidnappingand serious illegal detention as defined and penalized inArticle 267 of the Revised Penal Code is the actualdeprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with proof beyond reasonable doubt of an intent of the accused toeffect the same. It is thus essential that the following beestablished by the prosecution: (1) the offender is a privateindividual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in anyother manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the actof detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in thecommission of the offense, any of the four circumstancesenumerated in Article 267 be present. But if the kidnappingwas done for the purpose of extorting ransom, the fourthelement is no longer necessary.There is no mistaking the clear, overwhelmingevidence that the appellants abducted Alexander Saldaña
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer96

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
euneuneun liked this
Anne Andam liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->