considered liable to a penalty under Art. 267 of the RPC.

It is
People of the Philippines Vs. Elmer Avancena y Cabanela, et al.
G.R. No. 200512 June 7, 2017
DOCTRINE:
Even if they were employed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA), detaining any private person for the purpose of
extorting any amount of money could not, in any way, be construed
as within their official functions. If proven, they can be guilty of
serious illegal detention.
considered kidnapping and serious illegal detention. All the
necessary elements are present and it was proved by the
prosecution. SC also rules that the accused-appellant is also guilty
of the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons. In the case at bar this was seen when Avancena demanded
a sum of money in exchange of the liberty of the person kidnapped.

The fact that the victim voluntarily went with the accused does not
remove the element of deprivation of liberty if the victim went with
the accused on a false inducement without which the victim would
not have done so.

FACTS:
Elmer Avancena was, according to his claim, an enforcement officer
who was arrested during an entrapment operation. He was alleged,
together with his conspirators, of abducting and illegally detaining
Rizaldo and extorting a sum of money from the father of the
mentioned victim. He claimed that this case was Alfonso’s revenge
since he alleged that Rizaldo was involved with drugs matters. This
however was not substantiated during the trial. When the decision
was made, the court found the accused-appellant guilty as charged
beyond reasonable doubt. The case was elevated to the CA who
affirmed RTC decision. Thus, the present case was brought before
the SC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and robbery.

RULING:
Yes. The law states that any private individual who shall kidnap or
detain another, or in any other matter deprive him of his liberty is