You are on page 1of 22

AGUIRRE vs.

SECRETARY OF JUSTIICE
G.R. NO. 170723, 03 March 2008
FACTS: In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as
amended, petitioner Gloria Pilar S. Aguirre (Gloria Aguirre) seeks the reversal of the 21
July 2005 Decision and 5 December 2005 Resolution, both of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 88370, entitled “Gloria Pilar S. Aguirre v. Secretary of the Department
of Justice, Michelina S. Aguirre-Olondriz, Dr. Juvido Agatep, Dra. Marissa B. Pascual,
Pedro B. Aguirre and John and Jane Does.” Olondriz denied that the prospected,
scouted, facilitated, solicited and/or procured any false statement mutilated or abused
his common law brother, Laureano Aguirre. She further contends that his common law
brother went through a vasectomy procedure but that does not amount to mutilation. Dr.
Agatep contends that the complainant has no legal personality to file a case since she is
only a common law sister of Larry who has a legal guardian in the person of Pedro
Aguirre. He further contends that Vasectomy does not in any way equate to castration
and what is touched in vasectomy is not considered an organ in the context of law and
medicine. The Assistant City Prosecutor held that the facts alleged did not amount to
mutilation; the vasectomy operation did not deprived Larry of his reproductive organ.
Gloria Aguirre then appealed to the Secretary of the DOJ but Chief State Prosecutor
dismissed the petition stating that the Secretary of Justice may motu propio dismiss
outright the petition if there is no showing of any reversible error in the questioned
resolution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are liable for the crime of mutilation?
RULING: No, the court held that Article 262 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any
person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or
partially, of some essential organ for reproduction. Any other intentional mutilation shall
be punished by prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods. A straightforward
scrutiny of the above provision shows that the elements of mutilation under the first
paragraph of Art.262 of the Revised Penal Code to be 1) that there be a castration, that
is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation; and 2) that the mutilation is caused
purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of some essential organ
for reproduction. According to the public prosecutor, the facts alleged did not amount to
the crime of mutilation as defined and penalized above, i.e., [t]he vasectomy operation
did not in any way deprived (sic) Larry of his reproductive organ, which is still very much
part of his physical self.

LI vs. PEOPLE
427 SCRA 217

FACTS: Petitioner Li was charged before the RTC of Makati with the crime of homicide
for the death of Christopher Arugay. The prosecution alleged that Arugay was watching
television at home with his sisters Cristy and Baby Jane, his girlfriend dela Camara and
Baby Jane’s boyfriend, Tan. They suddenly heard a noise outside. Peering through the
window, they saw Li and a certain Eduardo Sangalang taking a bath completely naked.
The two were facing the house of the Arugays. Enraged, the deceased shouted
something to Li and Sangalang. Then petitioner Li shouted back. An incensed Arugay
went out the house where he was met by petitioner carrying a baseball bat. Li struck
Arugay on the head with the bat, causing Arugay to fall. Li ran back to his house. The
witnesses Tan and dela Camara assisted Arugay and were trying to drag him back to
his house when Li re-emerged, this time with a knife. Li then stabbed Arugay once.
Immediately thereafter, they were able to see Sangalang stab Arugay at least once.

Petitioner Li denies killing Arugay. He contends that he hit first with a baseball bat
Christopher Arugay hitting the latter not on the head but at the right arm which is near
the shoulder. The deceased who is armed with a bolo, retaliated by hacking Li on the
head, causing him to lose his hold on the baseball bat and fell semi-unconscious or
unconscious. In such a condition, it is highly improbable that he was capable of inflicting
the fatal stab wounds on Arugay.

After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to the penalty of eight (8) years and
one (1) day of Prision Mayor to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day
of Reclusion Temporal. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Aggrieved,
Li filed a petition for review, seeking the reversal of his conviction for the crime of
homicide.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner should be convicted for the crime of slight physical
injury instead of homicide?

RULING: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. It ruled that the only injury
attributable to Li is the contusion on the victim’s right arm that resulted from Li striking
Arugay with a baseball bat. In view of the victim’s supervening death from injuries which
cannot be attributed to Li beyond reasonable doubt, the effects of the contusion caused
by Li are not mortal or at least lie entirely in the realm of speculation. When there is no
evidence of actual incapacity of the offended party for labor or of the required medical
attendance, the offense is only slight physical injuries.

What transpired during the dawn hours of was an artless, spontaneous street
fight devoid of any methodical plan for consummation. It arose not because of any longstanding grudge or an appreciable vindication of honour, but because the actors were

the person who is responsible for the death apparently remains at large. It was only at around 2:00 a.m.m. Careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the criminal culpability of Li in the death of Arugay was not established beyond reasonable doubt. naked on top of their daughter. however senseless this lethal imbroglio is. Irene’s overall deportment during her ordeal defies comprehension and the reasonable standard of human conduct when faced with a similar situation. Ignacio and his wife proceeded in haste to investigate but they were surprised and disarrayed to see his co-worker. appellant suddenly pulled her and laid her on a wooden bed (papag). Thinking he had the usual errand for her she approached him. Irene testified that at around 10:00 p. PEOPLE vs. Appellant did not deny that he had several intercourse with Irene but interposed “sweetheart story”. as in the case at bar. a judicious examination of the circumstances must be made to avoid leaps into hyperbole. This constrained us to entertain a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the appellant. Ignacio and his wife were awakened by the loud banging of corrugated GI sheet coming from the barracks of his coconstruction worker which was about 3 meters away. ISSUE: Whether or not force and intimidation is attendant in this case? RULING: Neither was intimidation employed against her. It is unnatural for an intended rape victim. of August 10. 1999. He inserted his penis into her vagina. bolo or any object or instrument that the appellant could have employed so as “to create a real apprehension of dangerous consequences or serious bodily harm”. .m.too quick to offense and impervious to reason. Even if she was pulled down to the bed. that she was able to finally kick the galvanized iron sheet that enclosed the appellant’s barracks. OGA 431 SCRA 354 FACTS: At around 2:00 a. as well as his clothes. Unfortunately. of August 9. Irene. who was also naked. not to make even a feeble attempt to free herself despite a myriad of opportunities to do so. she was not threatened with bodily or physical harm by a knife. The appellant then took off her pants and panty. the appellant summoned her to his barracks. 1998. However. Yet. herein appellant.

Pangasinan in Criminal Cases Nos. his very own daughter Josephine Ferrer Agsaoay moral and exemplary damages in each count. Urdaneta. convicting Santiago Agsaoay. The defense endeavors to prove that Josephine is an unchaste young woman who habitually goes out with different men. ISSUE: Is the appellant’s contention tenable? RULING: No. he always inflicts physical violence on Josephine for going around with different men. the above-named accused by means of force and intimidation. entered a plea of not guilty to the crimes charged. hence this petition. the victim’s moral character is immaterial. to the damage and prejudice of said JOSEPHINE FERRER AGSAOAY. a joint trial on the merits followed. y Alvendia. appellant tries to impute ill-motive to Josephine. appellant. of two counts of rape (qualified by relationship and minority) and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death in each count. appellant. Thereafter. 1997 at Barangay Malokiat.PEOPLE vs. Suffice it to state that such debasement of her character does not necessarily cast doubt on her credibility. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. The accused was convicted by the trial court. unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with JOSEPHINE FERRER AGSAOAY. Jr. there being absolutely no nexus between it and the odious deed committed Even a prostitute or a woman of loose morals can be the victim of rape. We have consistently ruled that parental punishment is . assisted by counsel. It is a well-established rule that in the prosecution and conviction of an accused for rape. according to the accused. In a last-ditch effort to exculpate himself from criminal liability. for she can still refuse a man’s lustful advances. U-9332 and U-9333. province of Pangasinan.the reason why she charged him with rape. did then and there willfully. against her will and without her consent. Contained in the two informations charging appellant with rape states that on or about July 15 and 17. 1997 of the Regional Trial Court. AGSAOAY 430 SCRA 450 FACTS: For automatic review is the Decision dated November 28. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving faith and credence to the testimony of Josephine Agsaoay. Upon arraignment. However. nor does it negate the existence of rape. He was also ordered to pay the victim. municipality of Pozorrubio. a minor age 17 years old and accused’s own daughter.

The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized by law. It bears stressing that the determination of Josephine and her mother in facing a public trial. correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape and in imposing the death penalty upon him. Romeo Jalosjos. implication or equitable considerations. therefore. in spite of its importance. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused-appellant’s status to that of a special class. The provision granting an exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms. it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system. Art. To allow accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings for 5 days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position. the privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be enlarged or restricted by law. unmindful of the resulting humiliation and shame. The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members of the House of Representatives arises from a provision of the Constitution. it has constitutional foundations. The accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be exempted from the operation of Sec. . obviously demonstrates their genuine desire to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished. The accused-appellant filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman. 11. including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense on the basis of popular sovereignty and the need for his constituents to be represented. The privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense. The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate one. However. is a full-fledged member of Congress who is confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness is pending appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellant should be allowed to discharge mandate as member of House of Representatives? RULING: Election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. PEOPLE vs. VI of the Constitution. JALOSJOS 369 SCRA 179 FACTS: The accused-appellant. The trial court. It may not be extended by intendment. it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to fabricate a story which would put her own father for the most of his remaining life in jail and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.not a good reason for a daughter to falsely charge her father with rape For even when consumed with revenge.

while his short pants were down to his knees and his hands holding his penis with his right hand. MODIFIED.. For rape to be .t . He pushed Corazon aside who she tried to block his path.ng ina mo. Horrified. to chase the Campuhan who was apprehended. brother of Corazon. to fourteen (14) years ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. Thus. she only shouted "Ayo'ko. her brother. mother of 4-year old Crysthel Pamintuan. Costs de oficio. "Ayo'ko. They called the barangay officials who detained. RTC: guilty of statutory rape. CAMPUHAN 329 SCRA 270 FACTS: April 25. Corazon P. guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium as minimum. Physical examination yielded negative results as Crysthel‘s hymen was intact. RULING: NO. a cousin and an uncle who were living within their compound. ISSUE: Whether or not it was a consummated statutory rape. De la Peña: labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated Primo's kneeling position rendered an unbridled observation impossible. He evaded her blows and pulled up his pants. Corazon narrated that Primo had to hold his penis with his right hand. ayo'ko!" so she went upstairs and saw Primo Campuhan inside her children's room kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas or "jogging pants" and panty were already removed. 1996 4 pm: Ma. went to the ground floor of their house to prepare Milo chocolate drinks for her 2 children.PEOPLE vs. Campuhan: Crysthel was in a playing mood and wanted to ride on his back when she suddenly pulled him down causing both of them to fall down on the floor. There she met Rimo Campuhan. Pamintuan. People v. Corazon then ran out and shouted for help thus prompting Vicente. helper of Conrado Plata Jr. Then she heard Crysthel cry. Crysthel made a categorical statement denying penetration but her vocabulary is yet as underdeveloped. she cursed "P . who was then busy filling small plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice in the freezer located at the second floor. thus showing that he had yet to attain an erection to be able to penetrate his victim the possibility of Primo's penis having breached Crysthel's vagina is belied by the child's own assertion that she resisted Primo's advances by putting her legs close together and that she did not feel any intense pain but just felt "not happy" about what Primo did to her. sentenced him to the extreme penalty of death. ayo'ko!" not "Aray ko. anak ko iyan!" and boxed him several times. aray ko! No medical basis to hold that there was sexual contact between the accused and the victim.

For crimes where no death results from the offense. Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code. reimposing the death penalty is unconstitutional per se: a. 11 of the 1987 Constitution. 1993." In the second whereas .consummated. and for Other Purposes. as Amended. Mere touching of the external layer of the vagina is not the same as ‘slightest penetration’. PEOPLE vs. accused is only liable for ATTEMPTED RAPE. when R." The constitutional exercise of this limited power to re-impose the death penalty entails (1) that Congress define or describe what is meant by heinous crimes. and (3) that Congress." took effect. meted out the supreme penalty of death for raping his ten-year old daughter. death can only be imposed upon the attendance of circumstances duly proven in court that characterize the crime to be heinous in accordance with the definition or description set in the death penalty bill. only crimes that qualify as heinous in accordance with the definition or description set in the death penalty bill and/or designate crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death in which latter case. 1996.A. RULING: The detailed events leading to the enactment of R. Mere touching of the external layer of the vagina is not the same as ‘slightest penetration’.A. Republic Act (R. (2) that Congress specify and penalize by death. Between December 31.A No. a slight brush or scrape of the penis on the external layer of the vagina will not suffice. and one of them. b. Sec. for rape to be consummated. in enacting this death penalty bill be singularly motivated by "compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. the death penalty is a severe and excessive penalty in violation of Article III. a slight brush or scrape of the penis on the external layer of the vagina will not suffice. 7659 took effect. [No. 1993.A. Article III. criminal offenders have been prosecuted under said law. On June 25. and the present time. we affirmed his conviction and the death sentence. "An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes. Upon his conviction his case was elevated to us on automatic review. entitled. The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Article III. 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution. Hence. ISSUE: Whether or not R.] 7659. No. Other Special Penal Laws. Accused is only liable for ATTEMPTED RAPE.) No. for it is subject to a clear showing of "compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. Further. 7659 as unfurled in the beginning of this disquisition necessarily provide the context for the following analysis. pursuant to said law. 7659. This power is not subsumed in the plenary legislative power of Congress. ECHEGARAY 257 SCRA 581 FACTS: On December 31. herein accused-appellant has been. Sec. Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution plainly vests in Congress the power to re-impose the death penalty "for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes".

by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness. was from the Greek prefix "haton". . Alicando. denoting acts so hatefully or shockingly evil.A. or in the person of the accused on his own or in relation to the victim. The elements that call for the imposition of the supreme penalty of death in these crimes. it is premature to demand for a specification of the heinous elements in each of the foregoing crimes because they are not anyway mandatorily penalized with death. vicious. . . or inherently or manifestly wicked. the manner of commission of crime. odious. "haineus". we find the definition or description of heinous crimes. 7659. instead actually imposes the death penalty because it has. We find the foregoing definition or description to be a sufficient criterion of what is to be considered a heinous crime. meaning hateful and abominable. the accused. the uniform penalty for all of them being not mandatory death but the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. in his dissenting opinion in People v. time. In other words. place. No. the following crimes are penalized by reclusion perpetua to death: All the crimes mentioned therein are not capital crimes per se. 7659. Under R. civilized and ordered society. the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being grievous. No 7659 imposes not a mandatory penalty of death but the more flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.clause of the preamble of R. traced the etymological root of the word "heinous" to the Early Spartans' word. atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just civilized and ordered society. No. atrocious or perverse as to be repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just.A. This criterion is deliberately undetailed as to the circumstances of the victim. which circumstances characterize the criminal acts as grievous.A. odious and hateful offenses and which. to afford the sentencing authority sufficient leeway to exercise his discretion in imposing the appropriate penalty in cases where R. found the attendance of certain circumstances in the manner by which the crime was committed. Said clause provides that: . its proximate consequences and effects on the victim as well as on society. Justice Santiago Kapunan. would only be relevant when the trial court. which in turn. given the prerogative to impose reclusion perpetua. or in any other matter of significance to the commission of the crime or its effects on the victim or on society. or hateful. viciousness. in appreciating the evidence proffered before it.

1999. of December 3. Villa Ernesto. 99-669. 1999. 99-668 charged the accusedappellant as follows: That on or about 10:30 in the evening more or less. [P]50. The trial court also upheld as sincere and genuine the two daughters' testimonies. her wife. . and that on December 12. the accused-appellant boxed her shoulder for refusing to have sex with him. 99-668 and Criminal Case No. the above-named accused by means of force upon person did then and there wilfully. 1998. NO. against the latter's will. the accused-appellant. were married on October 18. Philippines. KKK executed a Complaint-Affidavit.m. the Court hereby finds accused Edgar Jumawan "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the two (2) separate charges of rape and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each. They lived together since then and raised their four (4) children as they put up several businesses over the years.00 in each case. 187495.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs. The RTC sustained the version proffered by the prosecution by giving greater weight and credence to the spontaneous and straightforward testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses. R. of October 9.PEOPLE vs. finding probable cause for grave threats. unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the private complainant. 1975.000. Gusa.000. RULING: WHEREFORE. the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City issued a Joint Resolution. two Information for rape were filed before the RTC respectively docketed as Criminal Case No. 1998 at their residence in Phase 2.00 in each case as moral damages. less serious physical injuries and rape and recommending that the appropriate criminal information be filed against the accused-appellant. indemnify complainant the sum of Php75. as it is not natural in our culture for daughters to testify against their own father for a crime such as rape if the same was not truly committed. On July 16. ISSUE: Whether or not the husband can be guilty of rape.000. at Gusa. JUMAWAN G. to pay complainant Php50. alleging that her husband. Cagayan de Oro City. Cagayan de Oro City. On June 11. 1998. raped her at 3 :00 a. 21 APRIL 2014 FACTS: Accused-appellant and his wife. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. On February 19. The Information in Criminal Case No. 1999.

Sexual intimacy brings spouses wholeness and oneness. as expressions of love. It is a deep sense of spiritual communion. . Further. It is an expressive interest in each other’s feelings at a time it is needed by the other and it can go a long way in deepening marital relationship. that are both spontaneous and mutual and not the kind which is unilaterally exacted by force or coercion. obligates the spouses to love one another but this rule sanctions affection and sexual intimacy. the delicate and reverent nature of sexual intimacy between a husband and wife excludes cruelty and coercion. 1998. . the Philippines cannot renege on its international commitments and accommodate conservative yet irrational notions on marital activities that have lost their relevance in a progressive society. a husband who feels aggrieved by his indifferent or uninterested wife’s absolute refusal to engage in sexual intimacy may legally seek the court’s intervention to declare her psychologically incapacitated to fulfil an essential marital obligation. It is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation.The trial court rejected the version of the defense and found unbelievable the accused-appellant's accusations of extra-marital affairs and money squandering against KKK. A highlight of the Supreme Court’s reasoning is hereunder quoted: A woman is no longer the chattel-antiquated practices labeled her to be. he is fulfilling a marital consortium with a fellow human being with dignity equal to that he accords himself. If the husband cannot use the courts to compel a wife to have sexual intercourse with him. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations. as to the accused-appellant's actual whereabouts on October 16. It is true that the Family Code. the Court will step in to protect its lofty purpose. Equia. When it is egoistically utilized to despoil marital union in order to advance a felonious urge for coitus by force. That a husband can be guilty of rape if he has sexual intercourse with his wife without her consent is consistent with the rule that a spouse’s right to have sexual intercourse with his wife cannot be enforced in Court. The trial court shelved the accused-appellant's alibi for being premised on inconsistent testimonies and the contradicting declarations of the other defense witness. violence or intimidation. But he cannot and should not demand sexual intimacy from her coercively or violently. Surely. He cannot be permitted to violate this dignity by coercing her to engage in a sexual act without her full and free consent. then surely the husband cannot use the existence of the marital relationship per se to exculpate himself from criminal liability for rape. Besides. A husband who has sexual intercourse with his wife is not merely using a property. vindicate justice and protect our laws and State policies.

He noticed three vehicles parked in front of the store – a green Nissan Sentra car. and locked into a room. After driving for about an hour. he was handcuffed and made to stoop down. at around 9:00 p. Laguna. a man alighted from the Nissan Sentra car and aimed a gun at him.m. She immediately called then Vice-President Joseph Estrada to seek assistance. Meanwhile. Ruiz was led out of the car.2 Million after negotiations. Mrs. At 2:30 a.m. NO. of the following day. of the same day. 177566.m. The latter referred the matter to General Panfilo Lacson (Lacson) who in turn instructed Police Officer Senior Superintendent Cesar Mancao (Mancao) to dispatch teams to monitor the alleged kidnappers. MARCH 26.PEOPLE vs. Sonia finally received a call from the alleged kidnapper who identified himself as Ka Rudy. Sonia Co (Sonia) received a call from the vice mayor of Cabuyao. Cabuyao. A certain Ka Rudy told him that he had just been kidnapped in exchange for P40 Million for his freedom. Laguna that her son had been kidnapped. of 8 September 1997. He tried to escape and started running towards the company plant when two (2) armed men alighted from the L-300 van and blocked his way. he was also blindfolded and handcuffed but was allowed to go to the bathroom accompanied by . Ruiz was then forcibly boarded into the black Honda Civic car. During Ruiz’s captivity. Suddenly. Ruiz Saez Co (Ruiz) was taking his meal in a store located just outside his company’s premises in Barrio Mamatid. TAN G. Inside the car. Ka Rudy asked for a P40 Million ransom. a black Honda Civic car and a red L-300 van. brought inside a house.R. 2008 FACTS: At about 8:30 p. On his second call. which amount was lowered to P1. The latter confirmed that Ruiz was in his custody.

Pedro Navarro (Pedro). the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua on each of the appellants in the appealed decision is AFFIRMED. On 14 September 1997. Angelito Ang Diego. and not Republic Act No. took care of him by feeding him three (3) times a day. Benito Feolog Felazol. traveled to Baguio. Taytay. when four (4) men forcibly seized and boarded him into a car. he was 1 . The following day. Bulacan. the only link to the accused is that they were all arrested at the place where the kidnap victim was rescued. Armando Panaguiton De Luna. appellants contended that mere presence at the crime scene cannot be considered as proof of conspiracy. he was blindfolded.7 million. Oliver Caparas (Oliver). and Roberto Tolentino are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Rizal.k. appellants proffered that their guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellants were guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention? RULING: WHEREFORE. later identified as Lanie dela Cruz (dela Cruz). the kidnappers agreed to lower the ransom to P1. PEOPLE vs. Oliver was then brought to a room and his blindfold removed. Oliver was made to board the same van and brought to the Petron Gas Station in Meycauayan Highway. they slept overnight inside the van in a parking lot.a. an uncle of Oliver. the appealed decision is MODIFIED in that appellants Rosalinda Trapago Tan a. A team was dispatched to said area the following morning and surveillance was thereafter conducted. While inside the car. and that Ruiz was being kept in a house somewhere in Palmera Homes Subdivision. He was later transferred to a van. was waiting for a ride to school in a corner near his house in Matimbo.k. Malolos. By virtue of this modification. After three (3) days of negotiation. NO.his kidnappers. Furthermore. received a call from the kidnappers initially asking for P10 million ransom in exchange for the release of Oliver.” Later that night. 5’5 or 5’6 feet tall and wearing sunglasses. Appellants argued that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution failed to prove that they conspired and actually participated in the kidnapping of the victim. a woman. hence. Mancao received a tip from an anonymous female caller that the persons responsible for the kidnapping of Ruiz were the caller’s husband and the latter’s girlfriend. Appellants maintained that among the circumstances allegedly established by the prosecution’s evidence. Maria El Felasol Flores a.a. He eventually gave the money to a man whom he would later describe as “mestizo. the kidnappers proceeded to Bonita’s Resort in Pangasinan. 9346. JANUARY 23. Kaye Suarez Palino. then 13 years of age. After receiving a call from the kidnappers.R. tailed by a car. Upon alighting from the van. 1[4] The van. He stayed inside the room for one (1) week. 2007 FACTS: On 10 September 1996. Mae Felasol Flores. Eduardo Frondozo Felazol. All told. In the meantime. the father of Oliver. Eleazar Caparas (Eleazar). 173022. he proceeded to follow the instructions on the drop-off. RODRIGO G. On 17 September 1996. they must be acquitted. While there. During his stay. was instructed by Eleazar Caparas to deliver the ransom money.

without eligibility for parole.00 representing the amount of ransom money. At all events. the accused must not only show that he was in a place other than the situs of the crime at the time it was committed. namely: (1) that the offender is a private individual. are both reduced to reclusion perpetua. It is evident from the testimonies of the witnesses that the essential elements of kidnapping were present. First. still it is highly probable for him to have been physically present at the scene of the crime at the time of the abduction. (2) that he kidnaps or detains another. Fourth. or (d) that the person kidnapped or detained is a minor.000. (3) that the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal. Oliver was abducted by four (4) armed men. the testimony of Esther Guevarra is unavailing.2[11] At around 1:00 a. Pedro Navarro saw Oliver eating inside the canteen and brought him home where he was reunited with his father. Fifth. To establish alibi. or a public officer. We affirm the award of actual damages amounting to P1. The distance between Malolos and Bulacan. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellants are guilty of kidnapping with ransom? RULING: Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. considering that the alibi is corroborated by his wife. appellants are private individuals. he was detained in a house in Pangasinan against his will. the crime of kidnapping is committed with the concurrence of the following elements. the kidnappers called Eleazar again and asked them to go to the Petron Gas Station located between Meycauayan and Marilao along the Expressway. who has no motive to falsely testify. female. as well as that of moral damages of P100.m. and a wife is generally perceived to be partial to her husband. WHEREFORE. Likewise. Upon arriving at the Petron Station at 3:00 a.00. or (b) that it is committed simulating public authority. Third. or (c) that any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made.000. Granting that Plata had religiously fetched the children of Ester at 11:30 a. Bulacan can be negotiated with a 15-minute ride. appellant’s alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the kidnap victim himself.700. of 18 September 1997.m. conformably with jurisprudence. Plata’s alibi is patently weak.00 and was told that he would be fetched by his uncle inside a canteen in the gas station. the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. such that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the same. to which they are accordingly sentenced. and (4) that in the commission of the offense. or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty. the detention lasted for seven (7) days.given P500. 2 .m. any of the following circumstances is present: (a) that the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than five (5) days. Jr. Oliver Caparas was a minor at the time of the kidnapping incident. every weekday. The penalties on appellants Rey Plata and Feliciano Fajardo. Second.

violence and intimidation. with lewd design. confederating together and helping one another and by means of force. Egap Madsali (Egap) and Sajiron Lajim (Sajiron) were charged with the crime of serious illegal detention in an Amended Information 3[5] dated August 28. PEOPLE G. unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away one AAA. 12281. 179570. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Province of Palawan. NO. 1994. Municipality of Bataraza. against her will and consent and brought to the forest and on the occasion thereof the said accused by means of force. which reads: That on or about the 1st day of July.MADSALI. 1995. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. while armed with a bladed weapon known as “Badong”. That on the occasion of the said Rape. which reads: That on or about the 2nd day of July. at Barangay Malitub.R. accused Maron Lajim helped Sahiron Lajim by acting as look-out during the commission of the said crime. 1994 in the morning up to December 15. 1995. a girl of 16 years of age. Philippines. threat. did then and there willfully. threat. Province of Palawan. Philippines. did then and there willfully. FEBRUARY 4. the above-named accused conspiring. and while armed with a knife. Sajiron Lajim (Sajiron) and Maron Lajim (Maron) were charged with the crime of abduction with rape in an Information dated March 17. In Criminal Case No. 3 . unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with said AAA. to her damage and prejudice. against her will and consent. et al vs. 2010 FACTS: In Criminal Case No. the above-named accused conspiring. violence and intimidation. accused Sahiron Lajim. 12309. 1994. Municipality of Bataraza. in Barangay Malitub.

and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the amounts of P50. accused Sajiron Lajim and Maron Lajim 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. unlawfully and feloniously take and detain AAA. the amounts of P75. without eligibility for parole. an unmarried woman under 15 years of age in the house of Egap Madsali 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.000. Accused Sajiron Lajim is further ordered to support the offspring born as a consequence of the rape. violence and intimidation. the appeal is DENIED. 7659. 7659. and (b) In Criminal Case No.00 as civil indemnity and P50. 12309.confederating together and mutually helping one another. as amended by Republic Act No. accused Sajiron Lajim is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. 00475 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows: (a) In Criminal Case No. . The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. 12281. The amount of support shall be determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing.00 as moral damages. with support in arrears to be reckoned from the date the appealed decision was promulgated by the trial court.000.000. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellants were guilty for the commission of crime of abduction with rape? RULING: WHEREFORE. as amended by Republic Act No. CR-HC No. did then and there willfully. and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. and to pay jointly and severally.00 as civil indemnity and P75.R. with the use of force. the offended party AAA.00 as moral damages.000.

the evidence adduced is insufficient for a finding that the crime committed was politically motivated. Merely because it is alleged that appellants were members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front or of the Moro National Liberation Front does not necessarily mean that the crime of kidnapping was committed in furtherance of a rebellion. Here. the charge should have been rebellion and not kidnapping.PEOPLE vs. Neither have the appellants sufficiently proven their allegation that the present case was filed against them because they are rebel surrenderees. the political motivation for the crime must be shown in order to justify finding the crime committed to be rebellion. The four victims were taken to a mountain hideout and the appellants demanded ransom money for their release. we find the same likewise to be without merit. were convicted in the Regional Trial Court for the crime of kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention of Alexander Saldaña and his three companions. Like the defense of alibi. Alexander was detained for six months until he was finally released. it can be just as easily concocted. CA. As held in Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga Del Norte vs. This court has invariably viewed the defense of frame-up with disfavor. SILONGAN 401 SCRA 459 FACTS: The appellants in this case. ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of kidnapping committed by the accused should be absorbed in rebellion? RULING: As regards the argument that the crime was politically motivated and that consequently. who are a Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) rebel surrenderees. .

Suriaga instructed Mercidita as to the how the money should be delivered to him with a warning that if she will not deliver the money.Suriaga called Mercedita. The next day. When Rosita and the childleft. saying he did nothave the keys.000. Mercedita. Thereafter. arrived. Rosita asked Edwin if she couldtake Nicole with her to buy barbeque. with the cash money. butthe latter declined. Johnny immediately reported thecall to the PACC Task Force. Edwin.Johnny and his wife. Hewas accompanied by hislive-in-partner Rosita. Nicole’s grandfather then receivea call from Suriaga asking for ransom in the amount of P100. At this instance. Suriaga requested Edwin if he could drive the car. and while being tailed by PACC agents. Nicole. The PACC agents arrested Suriaga and his companion Isidera after Mercida gave the money to them. Having been acquainted with Rosita for a long time and becausehe trusted her. Edwin acceded. Nicole was rescued in a shanty where Rosita’s sister lived. Mercida proceeded to deliver the money to Suriaga. Suriaga. Prior thereto. Meanwhile.her daughter would be placed in a plastic bag or thrown in a garbage can. a cousin of the Ramos brothers.PEOPLE vs. Johnny who was taking care of his 2-year old daughter. Rosita held Nicole and cajoled her. thenbegan searching but they could not find their daughter and Rosita. SURIAGA 381 SCRA 159 FACTS: Edwin Ramos was cleaning the car of his older brother. More than an onehour has passed but the two failed to return with Nicole. playing inside the car. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was guilty of Kidnapping with ransom? . Johnny returned to his house becausea visitor arrived. introduced himself and asked herif she and her husband would give the amount to which the latter responded in the positive.00. Suriaga joined them.

And if the person detained is a child. which act by itself constitutes slight illegal detention. there was deprivation of the child’s liberty and that it was the intention of the accused to deprive the mother of the child’s custody. the elements of kidnapping for ransom have been sufficiently established by the prosecution considering the following circumstances: 1) Appellant. It held that the Trial Court erred in convicting the accused for murder when the circumstances do not clearly and sufficiently prove beyond a reasonable doubt that accused was guilty of murder. PEOPLE vs. The court a quo. along with several others. a private individual. LLAGUNO 285 SCRA 124 FACTS: Accused Llaguno. The evidence presented by the prosecution. when the prosecution’s case is anchored only on circumstantial evidence. the accused was only convicted for murder and not for serious illegal detention. Consequently. however.00 through telephone calls and gave instructions where and how it should be delivered. clearly established that appellant had in fact detained the victim without authority to do so. shot and killed said victim.e. While we find no proof beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a . found that appellant illegally detained the victim for at least one day. the circumstances under consideration must not support any rational hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. which was sustained by the trial court. Although charged with kidnapping with murder. we deem it significant to reiterate that the trial court merely made a finding that appellant could not be convicted of serious illegal detention for the sole reason that the victim’s detention did not exceed five days. the question that needs to be addressed is whether there is evidence to show that in taking the child. took the young Nicole without personally seeking permission from her father. 3) He detained the child and deprived her of her liberty by failing to return her to her parents overnighted the following day. without informing her parents of their whereabouts. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was guilty of Kidnapping with murder? RULING: The Court found the accused guilty only for serious illegal detention and not for murder. Besides. Undoubtedly. the trial court appreciated the act constituting slight illegal detention as a qualifying circumstance. 2) Appellant took the girl and brought her to a shanty where Rosita’s sister lived. i. In addition. The TC also erred in finding the accused not guilty of serious illegal detention as the period of detention was less that 5 days. were charged with Kidnapping with Murder when they allegedly kidnapped and detained Bienvenido Mercado. and 4) He demanded a ransom of P100.000. employing means to weaken the defense. “Parenthetically. coupled within dubitable proof of the accused’s intent to effect the same.RULING: The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty. appellant may not be held criminally liable for killing the victim”. “At this juncture. and no other.. all the circumstances must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime sought to be proven. and while under detention.

The accused denied the charges stating that on the night of the alleged kidnapping. the records indisputably prove culpability for slight illegal detention. . Negros Occidental. in Barangay Amontay.conviction for murder. ” PEOPLE vs. Binalbagan. along with their sons. DADLES 278 SCRA 708 FACTS: The accused Dadles was charged with kidnapping two farmers. he had fallen asleep at the home of one of the defense witness after a night of drinking. Tehidor and Alipan. The RTC rendered a decision conviction the accused of 2 counts of kidnapping and serious detention.

that the accused in a criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense for which he is on trial. PEOPLE vs. The RTC found Roluna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Kidnapping with murder. It is not competent to prove that he committed other crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing that he would be likely to commit the crime charged in the indictment”. The Court likewise added that “ the general rule is that evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to show. Where a person is charged with the commission of a specific crime. ROLUNA 231 SCRA 448 FACTS: Eight people.ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC erred on convicting Dadles of 2 counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention? RULING: The accused argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses fail to make out a case for kidnapping. thereby establishing the accused’s intent to deprive the victims of their liberty. stating “that the victims hands were not tied nor guns poked at their sides when they were taken by the appellants group do not conclusively preclude the deprivation of their liberty. for the purpose only of establishing the criminal intent of the accused. Witnesses claimed that they saw victim Anatalio Moronia stopped by accused and several others. particularly the appellant and his companions previous conduct in kidnapping victims Alipio and Dionisio. testimony may be received of other similar acts. The accused claimed that he was taking care of an ill relative at the time of the kidnapping. The circumstances surrounding the taking of Salvador and Antonio. The victim was alleged to have been threatened with firearms andhand bound behin his back. referring to particular witness testimony that he believed showed that the victims were not deprived of their liberty because they went with the Dadles and his companions peacefully without being subjected to threats and coercion. The Court found that both incidents of kidnapping were related in that proof of one kidnapping tends to prove the other. plainly demonstrate their intent to likewise deprive Salvador and Antonio of their liberty”. The accused raised that the . committed at about the same time. including accused Roluna were charged with kidnapping with murder. The SC disagreed.

Rubi-Rose asked for P 18.00 to be given to Doroteo and the remaining balance should pay for Willy‘s medical treatment.000.300. The testimony of the witnesses stating that the victim’s hands were bound by a companion of the accused is not enough to prove that the accused killed him. Doroteo. accused-appellant fetched Willy and Aresola from their home in Caloocan and brought them in Tondo. Later on. The SC thus decided that “Since none of the circumstances mentioned in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (kidnapping with serious illegal detention) was proved and only the fact of kidnapping of Anatalio Moronia was established. her son by a common-law relationship. the evidence presented by the prosecution surrounding the events of that fateful day are grossly insufficient to establish the alleged liability of accused-appellant for the death of Moronia”. ISSUE: Was the death of the victim sufficiently proved and may the accused be held liable or it? RULING: The Rules of Court provides that the death shall be presumed if a person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four years. is the mother of Jenny.body of the victim has not surfaced and that the unexplained disappearance cannot be blamed on him as there is all possibility that the victim may still be alive. “The conviction of accused-appellant for the serious crime of kidnapping with murder cannot be allowed to rest on the vague and nebulous facts established by the prosecution. She was introduced to accused-appellant Rubi-Rose who offered to work on the processing of Willy‘s travel documents to Canada. P 3. we find that the crime committed is slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code. Accused-appellant was asking Erma for sums of money which Erma refused to transmit. Jr. Erma sent P 5.” PEOPLE vs. 1997. As discussed earlier. However. . PASTRANA 387 SCRA 342 FACTS: Erma Postejo. Aresola and 9-year old Willy Garpen. accused-appellant informed Erma that Willy was suffering from bronchitis. a domestic helper in Canada.00 as processing fee.00.610. Aresola went home and Willy was left in Tondo. the SC decided that there were insufficient circumstances to hold the accused responsible for the death of the victim. Then on March 16.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code? RULING: No. In the final analysis. This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood.March 27. In the instant case. headstrong. accused-appellant informed Doroteo that Willy was missing and that he was last seen playing inside her apartment. Accusedappellant vehemently denied the charges against her but the trial court found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code. foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong. we will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.it must be premeditated. there is no reason for us to disregard the trial court‘s finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are entitled to full faith and credit. Factual findings of the trial court. The word deliberate as used in Article 270 must imply something more than mere negligence . especially on the credibility of witnesses. As consistently ruled by the Court. Erma returned to the Philippines to look for her son. 1997. the issue posed here is the credibility of witnesses. . and (2) the offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians. What is actually being punished is not the kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians. Erma found out that Willy was never treated for any illness. namely: (1) the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person. the Court ruled that Kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code has two essential elements. are accorded great weight and respect.