#26 (pp vs.

acbangin)
FACTS:
Acbacin, 21-year old was accused of kidnapping her niece, 4-year old Sweet. Sweet was last
seen playing at the house of the accused. When her father started looking for her, accused
denied having known where the child was. The following day, she disclosed that the child
was in the house of a certain Niu in Tondo, Manila. When the child was recovered a day after,
she was found to be in good and joyful condition. The child testified that it was Acbacin who
brought her to Niu's house, and this corroborated with Niu's testimony. The lower court
convicted Acbacin of kidnapping and serous illegal detention penalized by reclusion
perpetua.
ISSUE: Whether or not Acbacin is guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
HELD: Yes, the Supreme Court afiirmed in toto the decision of the regional trial court. All the
elements of the crime of kidnapping were present, even before Acbacin's remorse of
conscience. The crime was therefore already consummated: the victim was deprived of her
liberty even though she was treated well in Niu's house. One could not expect a four-year old
child to be able to go home when she is in a place far from her abode.
For there to be kidnapping, it is not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure. It is
enough that the victim is restrained from going home. Reclusion perpetua was then imposed
on Albacin. Dura lex sed lex, the law may be harsh but it is the law. Where the law is clear,
the court can only apply the law.
The Supreme Court, however, agreed with the RTC that a strict implementation of the
Revised Penal Code is too harsh in the present case, considering that the evidence does not
clearly indicate that Sweet or her parents suffered physical or emotional injury during the
former's two-day stay in Niu's house. It recommended to the President that executive
clemency be granted or that the penalty be reduced to prision correctional or prision mayor.
This was an application of Article 5 of the RPC.

Page 1 of 1