You are on page 1of 20

SAN BEDA COLLEGE College of Arts and Sciences Mendiola, Manila

KIDNAPPING
Legal Research

Submitted by: Charmaigne J. Sering BS Legal Management 2BLM

Submitted to: Atty. Pepper Bruce

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction Introduction Background of the Study Research Hypothesis 2 2 3 3

II.

Discussions G.R. No. 186226 G.R. No. 186123 G.R. No. 187229 G.R. No. 131926 & 138991 G.R. No. 148228 G.R. No. 193833 Penalties for the Crimes

4 5

6
7 9 11 12 16

III.

Conclusion

18

Bibliography

19

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I. Introduction

Kidnapping is a crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away of a person by force or fraud or against his or her will with the intent to use that abduction in connection with some other iniquitous purposes. These purposes include gaining ransom, inflicting physical or bodily injuries on the victim or third persons, facilitating the commission of felony and interfering governmental functions. According to the statistics provided by the Hiscox group in their tally of the kidnapping incidents all over the world, Philippines is one of the countries belonging to the top 5 countries worldwide that has severe cases of kidnapping incidents recorded in the year 1992-1999 with a total of 492 incidents. In the year 1996, kidnapping syndicates increased their activities by 67% as of January to June compared to the same period in 1995. Referring to the records gathered by The Star showed that at least 80 kidnappings were committed with 35 involving ransom compared to 48 kidnapping incidents in 1995 and 27 of which involved ransom. It is said that kidnappers were most active in February and March where 19 abductions happened in each of the two months and taking off 10.55 million. In the 80 incidents that happened in 1996 which is composed of 113 victims and 274 suspects and 19 of which were police officers. Out of 113 victims 22 of them were rescued, 43 were released, five were abandoned by their offenders, seven escaped, two were sexually assaulted, 14 killed and 22 remaining in captivity. As of October 19, 2001 the number of kidnapping incidents hit 82, some 70% higher than the total for all of preceding years. Basing from the records of the Philippine National Police, most of the victims of kidnappings are the foreigners, businessmen and children who belong to the upper income class. The Philippine National Police further states that kidnappers usually start their activity in surveying for a potential spotter whose work is to locate targets for the group. To facilitate the operation, a gang member is sometimes made to seek employment such as driver or household help or have a business transaction to gain access and control of the victim. The execution of the abduction plan is done at an opportune time. Through coordination with the inside man, the groups snatches their victims in a manner that would not catch attention or suspicion from the public. xxx

The primary reason why these kidnapping incidents happen is economic recession that has resulted in the loss of jobs and increased poverty. So there is a desperate resort to crimes to feed their families. Filipino companies try to preserve jobs as much as possible so the crime rate should go down. Basing from the reports in newspapers some of the reasons why people resort to kidnapping is also because of political reasons just like kidnapping the child of an official to threaten him to back out from the election or use it as a protest to stop a government official from doing something that many of the people are not in favour of. According to reports, the main reason of why kidnapping incidents happen is because they want to earn money the fast way and at the same time taking risks. Other reasons for kidnapping are: illegal child custody, abduction for sex/rape, murder or cruelty and slavery. According to the former Secretary of Education Jesli Lapus during his interview from the reporters that when these kidnapping crimes remain to be unsolved, negative effects will continue to develop among the people especially to the country. He said further that kidnapping crimes also have an impact in education. II. Background of the Study Having so many victims of kidnapping in our country today, the researcher finds it interesting to dig up more information about kidnapping. The researcher noticed that everybody are victims thats why she made it a point to be knowledgeable on this kind of crime so that she will be aware of the strategies of the captors and know the places where kidnapping mostly take place. In addition, the researcher finds kidnapping a nightmare during her early childhood days being an aborted victim. It was considered aborted because the transgressor failed on their desire to captivate the youngest child of the city mayor who happens to be the researcher. Instead of taking the child of the mayor as the victim, her cousin was almost captivated if not for his being alert and super active he might be the fulfilment of their plans and the victim of kidnapping. Thats why the researcher chose this topic which she considers the most suitable topic for her to get additional information.

III.

Research Hypothesis It is alleged that kidnapping is the source of income for the big time syndicates. It is

alleged further that kidnapping is the source of human trafficking. Discipline: Law (Sub Discipline: Criminal Law)

CHAPTER II DISCUSSIONS In order for us to understand more about kidnapping, let us differentiate it from illegal detention and know what its elements are. The offense of kidnapping connotes transporting the offended party from one place to another while illegal detention focuses on one restrained of his liberty of locomotion without necessarily transporting him from one place to another. The essential element or act which makes the offense of kidnapping is the deprivation of an offended partys liberty.1 In kidnapping there is an offender who is a private individual; that he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprive the latter of his liberty; the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and that in the commission of the offense, any of these circumstances is present: (a) That the kidnapping or detention last for more than 3 days; (b) That it is committed simulating public authority; (c) That any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) That the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.2 To sustain a conviction for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must establish these elements: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the victim of his liberty; (3) the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted on the victim or threats to kill are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public officer.3 The primary element of the crime of kidnapping is actual confinement, detention and restraint of the victim.4 There must be a showing of actual confinement or restriction of the victim, and that such deprivation was the intention of the malefactor. An accused is liable for kidnapping when the evidence adequately proves that he forcefully transported, locked up or

1 2

REVISED PENAL CODE, Book II, Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 1, Art. 267. People v. Salimbago, 314 SCRA 282 (1999). 3 People v. Villamar, 358 Phil. 886 (1998). 4 People v. Ubongen, G.R. No. 126024, 20 April 2001, 357 SCRA 142.

restrained the victim.5 There must exist unquestionable proof that the actual intent of the criminal was to deprive the victim of his liberty. The restraint of liberty must not arise merely as an incident to the commission of another offense that the offender primarily intended to commit. 6 The actual taking indicated an intention to deprive the victim of his liberty.7 However, motive is not an element of the crime of kidnapping.8 There must be a purposeful or knowing action by the accused to forcibly restrain the victim coupled with intent. There must be a purposeful or knowing action by the accused to forcibly restrain the victim coupled with intent.9 Although kidnapping for a certain purpose is a qualifying circumstance, the law does not require that the purpose be accomplished.10 Ransom employed in the law is so used in its common or ordinary sense: a sum of money or other thing of value, price, or consideration paid or demanded for recovery of a kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases from captivity. 11 It may include benefits not necessarily monetary which may accumulate to the kidnapper or a third person as a condition for the release of the victim.12

Here are some kidnapping incidents that the researcher herein presented: G.R. No. 186226, February 1, 2012 People of the Philippines, Appellee, v. YUSOP TADAH, Appellant. Yusop Tadah committed kidnap for ransom, kidnapping of a minor13 and serious illegal detention against Gina Yang y Barsaez, 3 years old, Princess Jane Cha-cha Yang, Joy Sagubay, Yang Wang Tao Chiu and Nicomedes Santa Ana. The accused committed the kidnapping to extort ransom. The commission of the crime was facilitated by using a motorized vehicle and motorized watercrafts. Bien Yang paid the amount of 2,000,000.00 for ransom. In April 18, 2005, the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga Branch 15 and 16 sentenced the appellant of death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTCs assessment of Nicomedes and Cha-chas testimony and credibility. However, the Court of Appeals reduced the

5 6

Ibid. People v. De la Cruz, 342 Phil. 854 (1997); People v. Sinoc, 341 Phil. 355 (1997). 7 People v. Acbangin, G.R. No. 117216, 9 August 2000, 337 SCRA 454. 8 People v. Acbangin, supra, see note 11; People v. Bernal, supra, see note 13. 9 People v. Soverano, 281 SCRA 438 (1997). 10 1 Am.Jur.2d Abduction and Kidnapping, p. 199. 11 People v. Akiran, 18 SCRA 239 (1966). 12 United States v. Cleveland, 56 F.Supp. 890 (1944). 13 See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 267, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7659, otherwise known as "The Death Penalty Law."

appellants sentence to reclusion perpetua in all five cases.14 The Supreme Court denied the appeal, but modified the penlty and awarded indemnity. The Court of Appeals correctly reduced the appellants sentence from death penalty to reclusion perpetua considering the passage of R.A. No. 9346, prohibiting the imposition of death penalty and that the appellant shall not be eligible for parole.15 The appellant is also liable for 75,000.00 as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime warrants the imposition of death penalty; 75,000.00 as moral damages because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries, without need of proof; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the public good, for each count of kidnapping and serious illegal detention because the Supreme Court finds it necessary to modify the appellants civil liability. Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed with modification. xxx Yusop Tadah is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 5 counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, for each count. In addition to the restitution of 2,000,000.00 for the ransom paid, the appellant is ordered to pay each of the victims the amounts of 75,000.00 as civil indemnity, 75,000.00 as moral damages, and 30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

G.R. No. 186123, February 27, 2012 People of the Philippines, Appellee v. MARITES VALERIO Y TRAJE, Appellant. Marites Valerio y Traje convicted for kidnapping a minor,16 the 3 year old Regelyn Incabo y Canete. The incident happened at Pier 14 to Pier 16, squatters area near Navotas fishport when the appellant took Regelyn while the latter was playing near her house without knowledge or consent from the parents and admitted Regelyns minority and even referred to her as a child.17 The appellant insisted that her intention was to protect and prevent the child from crossing the street, without intention to kidnap Regelyn Canete. In May 11, 2001, the Regional Trial Court sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Marites Traje filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals in May 22, 2008 and another in the Supreme Court on February 27, 2012; both courts find no reason to reverse the

14 15

Republic Act. No. 9346 (2006), Section 3. Ibid. 16 See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 267, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7659, otherwise known as "The Death Penalty Law." 17 TSN, June 6, 2000, p. 2.

factual findings of the RTC. The Supreme Court affirm the Court of Appeals factual findings and imprisonment imposed, the court finds it necessary to award the victim 50,000.00 for civil indemnity and another 50,000.00 for moral damages.18 The court also award the victim 30,000.00 as exemplary damages to set example for the public good.19

G.R. No. 187229, February 22, 2012 ARNEL SISON Y ESCUADRO, Petitioner v. People of the Philippines, Respondent. Kidnapping with rape was committed by a driver of a passenger van black Mitsubishi Adventure with plate number CSV606. The private complainant is a Product Support Representative working on a 10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. shift. The incident was done in a country motel which the complainant presumed that it was located in Sta. Mesa, Quezon City because she noticed the signage of the AMA Computer College. The complainant boarded the accuseds passenger van, a black, Mitsubishi Adventure with plate number CSV606. She seated in front of the passenger van as it was the only vacant seat at that time since there were already nine passengers on board. When they reached Quezon City, the passengers alighted one by one and the last of whom alighted in New York Street, Cubao, Quezon City. The victim was supposed to alight in Aurora Boulevard when they were already in front of Nepa Q-Mart and the victim was the only passenger left in the van, the accused told her that he would change first the 100.00 bill that the victim paid. Her fare was only 30.00 so she still had a change of 70.00. The accused made a few turns until they reached the alley, with nobody passing through. The incident happened at around 8:00 p.m. on the 17th day of April 2003 when the victim told the accused that she would alight since she felt uneasy but then she heard a cocking of a gun, and the accused suddenly put his right arm over her right shoulder, drew her nearer and pointed a gun at her chest with his right hand while he continued driving with his left hand. The accused kept driving for about ten to twenty minutes until such time that they entered a drive-thru, the victim saw the logo of the Town Country Motel in Sta. Mesa, Quezon City until they reached the room of the motel by dragging her. The accused still pointing the gun on her so he succeeded on his plan of raping the victim inspite of her plea. Afterwards, with the gun in his hand,

18

People of the Philippines v. Jerry Jacalne y Gutierrez, G.R. No. 168552, October 3, 2011; and People of the Philippines v. Alberto Anticamara y Cabillo and Fernando Calaguas Fernandez a.k.a. Lando Calaguas, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011. 19 People of the Philippines v. PO1 Froilan L. Trestiza, G.R. No. 193833, November 16, 2011; and People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 524, 546.

petitioner threatened to kill her if she would report the matter to the police.20 At around 12:20 a.m. of April 17, 2003, the victim reported the incident to Police Station 7. In cases of rape, the essential element that the prosecution must prove is the absence of the victims consent to the sexual congress.21 On December 14, 2007 the Regional Trial Court issued a joint decision as follows:
In Criminal Case No. Q-03-116710, the Court finds accused ARNEL SISON y ESCUADRO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping with Rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay private complainant (AAA) the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as moral damages. In Criminal Case No. Q-03-116711, the Court finds ARNEL SISON y ESCUADRO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294, and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months, and to pay a fine of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00).

On March 17, 2009 the Court of Appeals issued its assailed decision affirming petitioners conviction. The instant appeal in is DISMISSED. The assailed decision dated December 14, 2007 is hereby affirmed with modification regarding Criminal Case No. Q03116710 the court finds accused Arnel Sison y Escuadro is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay private complainant the amount of 75,000.00 as civil indemnity and 100,000.00 as moral damages. Criminal Case No. Q03-116711, the court finds accused Arnel Sison Escuadro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of P.D. 1886 as amended by R.A. 8294, and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of thirty (30) days to four (4) months.

20 21

TSN, July 2, 2003, pp. 8-14. People v. Baluya, G.R. No. 133005, April 11, 2005, 380 SCRA 532, 542.

G.R. No. 131926 & 138991, June 18, 2003 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MICHAEL U. PAGALASAN alias Mike, RONNIE CABALO alias Romy, ALADIN CABALO, FERDINAND CORTEZ, a JOHN DOE identified only as FERNANDO, and a PETER DOE identified only as Bong, accused. MICHAEL U. PAGALASAN alias Mike, appellant. In September 4, 1994, the accused Michael Pagalasan, Ronnie Cabalo, Aladin Cabalo, Ferdinand Cortez, John Doe and Peter Doe committed the crime of kidnap for ransom and kidnapping of a minor against George Lim and his 10 year old son Christopher Neal Lim. The incident happened at Villa Consuelo Subdivision, General Santos City. It happened when the family of George Lim was having ordinary or usual family habits when Julita Sarno, housemaid heard knocks on the kitchen door. She opened the door thinking that it was the security guard Fernando Cortez. The four armed men barged into the kitchen with bonnets on their faces.22 With them was Ferdinand Cortez, whose hands were tied behind his back. The masked men asked where her employers were, Julita answered that they were in their bedroom. She knocked on the bedroom door upon orders of the intruders. When Georges daughter opened the door, the 3 masked men barged into the room and shouted to the couple (George and Desiree): Walang mangyayari sa inyo basta ibigay ninyo ang kailangan naming. (Nothing will happen to you provided that you give us what we want). They ransacked the house before leaving taking with them cash and valuables.23 They used Georges car as their get-away vehicle to transport the victims to Banana Plantation. The masked men left a handwritten note to Desiree, wife of George. The note contains warnings in order not to interrupt the plans of the group of accused men, also stating the negotiator of the group named MR. MUBARAK II. Three men with Christopher disembarked in Banana Plantation and thereafter returned George to their house. The courts decision:
In Criminal Case No. 11062 for failure of the prosecution to prove the accusation against the accused Michael Pagalasan beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged. In Criminal Case No. 11098, the accused Michael Pagalasan is hereby found guilty of the crime of kidnapping for ransom as defined and penalized under Article 267 as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act 7659, and there being no modifying circumstance to
22 23

See REVISED PENAL CODE, Book II, Title 9, Chapter 2, Section 2, Article 280. See REVISED PENAL CODE, Book II, Title 10, Chapter 1, Article 293.

consider, he is sentenced to suffer the EXTREME PENALTY OF DEATH insofar as the case of George Lim is concerned. The same penalty of death shall also be imposed against Michael Pagalasan in the case of Christopher Neal Lim who was kidnapped on the same occasion and was released only on the sixth day after his captivity. The case of Ferdinand Cortez, for lack of sufficient evidence to convict him, he is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

Under Article 2219, paragraph 5 of the New Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered. In this case, the prosecution adduced testimonial evidence that for the crimes committed by the appellant and his co-conspirators, Spouses George and Desiree suffered mental anguish, fright and serious anxiety caused by the kidnapping of George and their son Christopher. Considering the factual setting in this case, the Court believes that the said spouses are entitled to moral damages in the amount of 100,000 for the kidnapping of Christopher, and the amount of 50,000 for the illegal detention of George. The appellant is also liable to the spouses for exemplary damages in the total amount of 50,000 for the two crimes conformably with current jurisprudence.24 However, the Court cannot consider these aggravating circumstances in determining the proper penalties for the said crimes, because the same were not alleged in the Information as mandated by Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.25 Although the said rules took effect after the commission of the crimes by the appellant, the same is favorable to the appellant; hence, should be applied retroactively.26 The appellant is not entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance under the second paragraph of Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code27 because he did not voluntarily

24 25

People v. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621 (2001). Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.

26

People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 145505, March 14, 2003.

10

release George within three days from the kidnapping. George was recovered by the policemen at the intersection of the national highway and Espina Road. G.R. No. 148228, December 4, 2003 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. PAMPING PAINGIN, GITONG MALDUMAN, and THREE (3) JOHN DOES, accused. PAMPING PAINGIN, appellant. The accused Pamping Paingin, Gitong Malduman and three John Does committed kidnapping with physical injuries and possible murder against Pati Panindigan. The purpose of the crime was not specified by the appellant, he made an alibi that is conflicting to the statements of the victims mother, Elena Panindigan and the witness, Narding Aguniag. Elena saw the appellant, Gitong Malduman and three other persons standing behind Pati. The appellant hit Pati on the neck with a piece of wood around one-half () inch28 long and three (3) inches in diameter causing the victim to be unconscious. The mother of the victim saw the accused and his accomplice carrying the victim passing through the cogonal area. Nanding Aguniag, the witness, saw the appellant dragging Pati with both of his hands at the scene of the crime. Both the prosecution and the defense presented conflicting versions of the events on May 3, 1995 in Sitio Loog, Barangay Paitan, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. The court found the testimonies of the prosecution clear, convincing and credible than the defense. The court found inadequacies on the statements of the appellant and his witnesses. The defense presented different testimonies that are conflicting to each other. Moreover, the victim is presumed to be dead since he was lost for 8 years29 since the abduction transpired until the accused filed an appeal form the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro in Criminal Case number C-4970, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping Pati Panindigan and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. And the court likewise affirms the award of 100,000 as moral damages.

27

If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the commencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 700 pesos. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 18, approved Sept. 5, 1946.) 28 This should be meter. TSN dated 25 August 1997, p. 9. 29 Article 390 and 391(3) of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

11

The appellant failed to persuade the court on his appeal that the conviction must stand on strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution and not on the weakness presented by the accused party. Appellants alibi30 goes even farther down the drain in the absence of any evidence of ill motive on the part of Elena and Narding to impute so grave a wrong to appellant.31 The restraint of liberty must not arise merely as an incident to the commission of another offense that the offender primarily intended to commit.32 The court finds no reason to change the decision of the trial court. Also, the court stand firm on the assessment of the trial court on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, Elena Panindigan (the mother of the victim) and Nanding Aguniag (the witness). The victims family has suffered serious anxiety and great distress in the uncertainty of seeing Pati again.33

G.R. No. 193833, November 16, 2011


People of the Philippines, appellee v. PO1 Froilan L. Terestiza, P/S Insp. Lorieman L. Manrique and Rodie J. Pineda Buboy, accused. PO1 Froilan L. Teresita, Accused-Appellant. PO1 Froilan L. Terestiza, P/S Insp. Lorieman L. Manrique and Rodie J. Pineda committed kidnap for ransom, robbery and illegal possession of firearms against Lawrence Yu y Lim and Maria Irma Navarro. The accused men allegedly said that they found out that the couple (Irma Navarro and Lawrence Yu) was suppliers of prohibited drugs, particularly Ecstasy, blue anchors, and yeng-yen. They (Navarro and Yu) have been distributing drugs to customers who frequently go to bars and disco pubs. That the accused sole purpose of doing such act is a buy-bust operation and the couple was meant to be brought to Camp Crame for investigation. It was later on decided that the accused drug dealers the couple (Irma and Lawrence) will just be released. They were then released near the [Manuella] Complex along Edsa at Where Else Disco in Makati City. The kidnapping happened when the couple Irma Navarro and Lawrence Yu attended a party on November 7, 2002 at 1:00 in the morning in Makati. It started when Irma was about to proceed to her boyfriends car, Lawrence Yu, a Honda ESI. She was about to open the door of
30 31

See REVISED PENAL CODE, Book II, Title 4, Chapter2, Section 2, Article 181. People v. Ramos, 358 Phil. 261 (1998). 32 People v. De la Cruz, 342 Phil. 854 (1997); People v. Sinoc, 341 Phil. 355 (1997). 33 People v. Silongan, G.R. No. 137182, 24 April 2003; People v. Baldogo, G.R. No. 128106-07, 24 January 2003.

12

their car when somebody hit her on the nape. When she turned her back, she saw Rodie Pineda accompanied by the men (accused party). Rodie Pineda is the godfather of Cynthias (Irmas sister) child. Irma was ushered inside the Honda ESI. Pineda asked the whereabouts of Lawrence but she was left inside the car with Reynel Jose, a policeman. Rodie and the other two policemen, Froilan Trestiza and Loriemar Manrique when looking for Lawrence. On the other hand, Lawrence narrated that on that same day at around 1:30 in the morning, as he was stepping out of the place, he was sandwiched by two policemen. Pineda was the one pointing a gun to him. He was loaded on a yellow Mitsubishi Adventure and was made to occupy the passenger seat. Trestiza was the one driving the van and Manrique occupied the seat beside Trestiza. They drove around stopping on different places; the Hondo ESI was following the van. He (Lawrence) was forced by the accused to give money. When Lawrence cannot bare the torture done by Jose, he gave up and decided to give them money. He was told to make a call with the information that he figured an accident, that they needed money very badly. He was able to contact his friend John Paul Suguitan and Angelo Gonzales who were in libis. He instructed his friends to proceed to a Caltex Station along Ortigas Corner Wilson Street in Greenhills as mandated by Manrique. Later on, Irma and Lawrence were joined together in the van and were told at that point to produce one million pesos ( 1,000,000.00) that night so they will be released. During the meet up with Lawrences friends, Suguitan and Gonzales, Lawrence was accompanied by Pineda who remained seated on the Honda ESI while smoking. After the transaction, Lawrences friends went away and he went back to the car and handed to Pineda a package. It was around 4:00 or 4:30 in the morning. The amount raised by Lawrences friend was a hundred and eighty thousand pesos ( 180,000.00). The couple was later on brought to the Star Mall along Edsa. The accused party warned the couple not to report what had happened to them that day or else their family will suffer the consequences. They were then released with the Honda ESI. Lawrence had to ask for their gasoline and the captors gave them only a hundred pesos ( 100.00). The captors got away taking with them the other expensive belongings of the victims.34 The following valuables were taken from the victims:
xxx

a. One (1) piece of necklace (gold) with pendant amounting to 50,000.00;


34

Supra, note 22.

13

b. Two (2) pieces bracelet (gold) worth more or less 70,000.00; c. One (1) Rolex watch worth 270,000.00; d. One (1) mens ring worth 15,000.00; e. Two (2) cellphone[s] described as Nokia 9210 & 3310; f. One (1) Philip Chariole [sic] watch worth 150,000.00; g. One (1) Philip Chariole [sic] bracelet worth 75,000.00; h. One (1) solo diamond studded [sic] (3K) worth 500,000.00; i. One (1) womens ring gold worth 12,000.00; j. One (1) necklace gold [sic] worth 20,000.00; k. One (1) [sic] cellphone[s] described as Nokia 7650 & 8855; and, l. Cash money amounting to more or less 300,000.00. xxx

Pineda continuously calling them from then on for their balance35 of one million pesos ( 1,000,000.00) until the entrapment operation was done during the transaction of Pineda. The two other (Trestiza and Manrique) were also arrested on November 15, 2002, the day after Pineda was captured. On that same day, the authorities found out that the firearm under Trestizas possession was unlicensed which was added to his charges. On the 24th day of July 2007, in its joint decision, the trial court found Trestiza, Manriqua and Pineda guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals by direct participation of kidnapping Irma Navarro and Lawrence Yu for ransom and other charges. There was a significant amount of time spent in determining whether kidnapping for ransom was the proper crime charged against the accused, especially since Trestiza and Manrique were both police officers. Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code specifically stated that the crime should be committed by a private individual.36 (Case no. 03-766 & 04-1311 both for robbery37)

35 36

TSN, 11 July 2005, pp. 13-15, 20-21, 48-51, 53-54, 81-82. See Luis B. Reyes, 2 The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law 542 (1998). 37 Supra, note 22.

14

The accused party was sentenced by the court to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In addition, they were ordered to pay jointly the private complainants the sum of three hundred thousand pesos ( 300,000.00) as actual damages and another three hundred thousand pesos ( 300,000.00) as exemplary damages. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,38 Trestiza is also liable for 75,000 as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime warrants the imposition of death penalty; 75,000 as moral damages because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries, without need of proof; and P30,000 as exemplary damages. A warrant of arrest was issued against PO2 Reynel Jose who continuous to be at large. In relation to the illegal arrest of an accused (as in the case of Trestiza) is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.39 The fatal flaw of an invalid warrantless arrest becomes controversial in view of a credible eyewitness account.40 Penalties for the Crimes When the crime was committed were aggravated by dwelling,41 the victim being kidnapped in their house just like in the case of George Lim and his 10 year old son Christopher Neal Lim with the use of a motor vehicle.42 It is said that there was conspiracy on the part of the accused party. Conspiracy is present when two or more persons connive and commit the act in their own will.43 Conspiracy as a mode of sustaining criminal liability must be proven separately from and with the same substantial of proof as the crime itself. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. As the case of the abduction of George Lim and his 10 year old son is concerned, the testimony of the father is sufficient to prove the crime committed by the conspirators. There is no need for the prosecution to present Christopher Neal Lim to testify as his testimony would be corroborative to his fathers testimony. After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies44 are concealed in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with

38 39

People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 188601, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 524. Citations omitted. People v. Calimlim, 416 Phil. 403, 420 (2001). See also People v. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 98321- 24, 30 June 1993, 224 SCRA 93; People v. De Guia, G.R. Nos. 107200-03, 9 November 1993, 227 SCRA 614; People v. Lopez, 315 Phil. 59 (1995); People v. Conde, 408 Phil. 532 (2001). 40 People v. Manlulu, supra. 41 Article 14, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code. 42 Article 14, paragraph 20, Revised Penal Code. 43 Article 8, Revised Penal Code. 44 REVISED PENAL CODE, Book I, Title 1, Chapter 1, Art. 8.

15

a common purpose and design.45 Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.46 There is authority to the effect that the conspiracy ends at the moment of any conspirators arrest, on the presumption, although rebuttable, that at the moment the conspiracy has been dissatisfied, no other evident act contributing to the conspiracy can possibly take place, at least as far as the arrested conspirator is concerned.47 If the conspiracy continues or has not yet ended, the greater chances that there is additional person joining the conspiracy. Also, there is a possibility that as the conspiracy continues, there may be occurrence of new explicit acts. If this ensues the unconfirmed report about certain acts and the declaration of one conspirator will be admissible to other conspirators thus they may be held legally responsible for the crimes committed by the others.48 As of the kidnapping case of the couple (Irma Navarro and Lawrence Yu), the conspirators were held liable as principals49 with direct participation of the crime in accordance with the statements in this paragraph. In the case of Arnel Escuadro who was convicted on the crime of kidnapping with rape is not considered as a complex crime since it is stated in Article 267 as amended by Republic Act 7659 of the Revised Penal Code that when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. It is well settled that physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon a victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapists advances because of fear for her life and personal safety.50 The prescribed penalty for kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no abrasive situation or revising situation in the commission of the crime, the appropriate penalty for the said crime is reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. The prescribed penalty for slight illegal detention is reclusion temporal in its full period, with a range of twelve years and one day to twenty years. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate

45 46

People v. Quilaton, 324 SCRA 670 (2000). People v. Pagalasan, 452 Phil. 341, 363 (2003) paraphrasing Regina v. Murphy, 172 Eng. Rep. 502 (1837). 47 22A Corpus Juris Secundum, Conspiracy, p. 1150; US v. Eng, 241 F.2d. 157 (1957). 48 Section 30, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Evidence. 49 REVISED PENAL CODE, Book I, Title 2, Art. 17. 50 People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 176265, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 698, 705.

16

penalty, the penalty shall be reduced by one degree, prision mayor, which has a range of six years and one day to twelve years. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of the penalty at the decision of the Court. The maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal, conformably to Article 64, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, the appellant shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of nine years and four months of prision mayor in its medium period as minimum, to sixteen years and five months of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum.

17

CHAPTER III CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the primary reason as to why people resort to kidnapping is because of economic rescission that resulted in the loss of jobs and increased poverty. For them, it is the fastest way to earn big amounts of money. In order to help decrease kidnapping incidents, Filipino companies try to preserve jobs. Aside from using kidnapping as their source of income, they also use kidnapping to give a message to the government. The target victims of these kidnappers are those people who have the capacity to pay huge ransom and the ability to pay fast like foreigners, businessmen and those people from the government. According to Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty given to people who committed kidnapping is reclusion perpertua to death. But when the victim is a minor and the accused is one of the parents, the penalty provided by the law is arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 300. When the crime committed is kidnapping with murder which is a special complex crime which is not under Article 48 or the Revised Penal Code has its own punishment stated in the last paragraph of Art. 267 amended by R.A. 7659. The government formed an anti-kidnapping task force which focuses only on solving kidnapping cases. This program or agency was formed in order to minimize the kidnapping incidents in the country. The best way to avoid being abducted or kidnapped is to prevent it from happening.

18

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 Am.Jur.2d Abduction and Kidnapping, p. 199. 22A Corpus Juris Secundum, Conspiracy, p. 1150; US v. Eng, 241 F.2d. 157 (1957). Article 14, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code. Article 14, paragraph 20, Revised Penal Code. Article 390 and 391(3) of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Arnel Sison y Escuadro v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187229, February 22, 2012. Luis B. Reyes, 2 The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law 542 (1998). People of the Philippines v. Marites Valerio y Traje, G.R. No. 186123, February 27, 2012. People of the Philippines v. Pamping Paingin, G.R. No. 148228, December 4, 2003. People of the Philippines v. PO1 Froilan L. Trestiza, G.R. No. 193833, November 16, 2011. People of the Philippines v. Yusop Tadah, G.R. No. 186226, Bebruary 1, 2012. People v. Acbangin, G.R. No. 117216, 9 August 2000, 337 SCRA 454. People v. Akiran, 18 SCRA 239 (1966). People v. Baluya, G.R. No. 133005, April 11, 2005, 380 SCRA 532, 542. People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 524, 546. People v. De Guia, G.R. Nos. 107200-03, 9 November 1993, 227 SCRA 614. People v. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 98321- 24, 30 June 1993, 224 SCRA 93. People v. Lopez, 315 Phil. 59 (1995); People v. Conde, 408 Phil. 532 (2001). People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 176265, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 698, 705. People v. Pagalasan, G.R. No. 131926 & 138991, June 18, 2003. People v. Soverano, 281 SCRA 438 (1997). Republic Act. No. 9346 (2006), Section 3. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 267, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7659, otherwise known as "The Death Penalty Law." REVISED PENAL CODE, Book I, Title 1, Chapter 1, Art. 8. REVISED PENAL CODE, Book I, Title 2, Art. 17. REVISED PENAL CODE, Book II, Title 4, Chapter2, Section 2, Article 181. REVISED PENAL CODE, Book II, Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 1, Art. 267. REVISED PENAL CODE, Book II, Title 9, Chapter 2, Section 2, Article 280. REVISED PENAL CODE, Book II, Title 10, Chapter 1, Article 293. Section 30, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Evidence. United States v. Cleveland, 56 F.Supp. 890 (1944). 19