PEOPLE v. DOMASIAN 1993.03.01 Cruz Relevant Law: Art.

267 Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention Parties: Victim: Enrico Paulo Agra, 8 years old Defendants: Pablito Domasian and Samson Tan Facts: Enrico was walking with a classmate when he was approached by Domasian who requested assistance in getting his fathers signature for a medical certificate. Enrico agreed and boarded a tricycle to Calantipayan where he waited outside while Domasian got the certificate. Enrico started to become apprehensive when they rode a minibus instead of heading to the hospital. They alighted at Gumaca and boarded another tricycle bound for the municipal building where Domasian handed an envelope to a jeepney driver addressed to Enricos father. While inside the tricycle, Enrico continued crying. The driver of the said vehicle asked Domasian how was he related to Enrico. He stated that he was Enricos brother. Intrigued, the driver approached two barangay tanods and told them about the boys predicament. They chased Domasian but alas, he was able to escape. Fortunately, Enrico was left behind and was able to reunite with his parents. At around quarter to two in the afternoon, the Agras received a note stating that their child would be killed if they did not surrender a million pesos in cash. Agra thought the writing was familiar and requested the NBI to compare it with his colleague Samson Tans penmanship. The NBI found that the handwriting indeed matched. The Regional Trial Court found both Samson Tan and Domasian guilty of Kidnapping and Serious illegal detention. Domasian avers that they did not commit Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention because he was not placed in an enclosure.

Issues: WON the defendants are guilty of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention even though the parents received the ransom note after being reunited with Enrico. YES. Held: ART. 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Kidnapping and serious illegal detention Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetual to death: 4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer. This crime may consist not only in placing a person in an enclosure but also in detaining or depriving him in any manner of his liberty. Enrico was deprived of his liberty when Domasian restrained him from going home and dragged him to the minibus and took him to the municipal building in Gumaca. Even before the receipt of the letter, the crime has already been consummated.

PEOPLE v. KAMAD AKIRAN (1966) Ponente: Bengzon, J.P., J. Relevant Laws: Art. 267, RPC, RA 1084 Parties: Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines Defendants-appellants: Kamad Akiran, et al. Facts: July 26, 1960: In Maimbung, Sulu, 10 individuals (Caught: Kamad Akiran, Jarang Askali, Jamiri Hawadji, Alammara

Dumpas and Kastiri Sappar; At large: Ahaddin Panning, Isirani Askali, Abdusali Jadji, Jammang Dahim and Ammang Akiran) conspired and kidnapped Isirani Sakili. * Isirani Sakili, a 45-year-old merchant testified that he was on the way to Jolo, Sulu with his brother and his driver after they had loaded their truck with copra at Maimbung. * At the Indanan-Lapa road they were then stopped by armed men who ran to the middle of the road and pointed their weapons at them. Jarang Askali then shouted for the passengers to come down from the truck. The brothers got out and Hadji Hassan (Isirani Sakilis brother) was ordered to return home and gather P1600 or else his brother would be killed. Hadj Hassan then got back in the truck and left. * Isirani Sakili was brought to an abaca plantation in Bud Katinganan where he stayed from 9am to 1pm of that day, guarded by Jarang and Ahaddin. * Isirani Sakili was then brought to Jamiri Hawadjis house. At 6pm of that day, he was released, but only after his brother and father-in-law (who the brother had found at a market) came and gave P1000 (which came from Isiranis wife) to Jarang Askali. They promised that the remaining P600 would be given the next day. * Isirani Sakili and his brother then went to report the incident at the Philippine Constabulary in Jolo. * Isirani Sakili identified the accused as 4 of his 10 kidnappers, as they had been neighbors as children and grew up together. His brother also corroborated his testimony. These acts are in violation of the 2nd paragraph (kidnapping and illegal detention for purposes of extorting ransom) of Art. 267, RPC. * Detained for 9 hours and for ransom Some witnesses: * Saddawani Sadd (prosecution): Was asked to intercede for Isirani Sakili and lend money. * Panglima Tagayan (for defense): Hayani Askali, Jarang Askalis brother, was supposedly shot by brothers or cousins-in-law of Isirani Sakili. Hayani then lodged a complaint with the fiscal. Isirani Sakili then offered to pay P1600 if he would not proceed with the complaint. The P1600 was supposedly for Hayanis medical expenses. *Layha Bismark (prosecution): Overheard the group of the accused discussing the kidnapping of the victim as well as the ransom, which was to be dropped off by victims brother and father-in-law. * 2 of the accused also testified for themselves and denied the charges with their own alibis. (Kamad Akiran was husking coconuts at time of incident, etc.) * Moreover, the defense argues that the purpose for detaining Isirani Sakili is to compel him to pay the P1600 for Hayanis medical fees. June 29, 1961: The court found the four accused guilty and charged beyond reasonable doubt. But, RA 1084 raises the penalty of kidnapping for ransom to a single penalty of death. So the accused were sentenced to death and ordered to pay Isirani Sakili P1000, jointly and severally and to pay the costs. Because of the death penalty, this case is on automatic review by the Supreme Court. Issues:

1. 2.

Was the trial court correct in upholding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses? Was the trial court correct in holding that there had been a conspiracy?

Held & Ratio: 1) YES. Normally the higher courts do not deal with facts, as the judges of lower courts are more suited to determining these things. They were able to observe the witnesses conduct. However, one exception to this rule is when it is shown that the trial court has overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the case. The Court still reviewed some factual testimonies: ** Jarang Askali: Supposedly he had unexpectedly seen Isiranis truck and had waived for it to stop. They then together proceeded to Jamiris house where the payment of P1600 was to be made. Courtsaid: That is unlikely. Because the meeting he is referring to is unplanned. As for the kidnapping and detention, that required some planning beforehand. Moreover, Jarang Askali (if his alibi is true) never even gave Hayani the money. He admitted that he had used it to buy a gun. ** Kamad Akiran: Alibi that he was husking coconuts at the time of the incident. Court said: Not enough to save him. His defense must be strong enough that he couldnt have possibly taken part in the crime (ex. impossibility of physical presence due to distance, etc.). ** Alammara Dumpas: He said he was in the truck with Isirani at that time of the incident. Court said: Then why would Isirani insist on accusing him of such an extreme offense if he had not taken part in the crime? ** Salama Sahawi: She said she could not identify the other companions of Jarang, therefore making it unlikely that the others took part in the crime. Court said:Just because she couldnt identify them doesnt mean they werent there. ** Isirani Sakili (victim): He denied the defenses of the accused, and along with his brother had positively identified 4 of the accused. Court said: The defense failed to give a stronger defense. So the decision of the trial court regarding this must be upheld. Alibi dwindles into nothingness in the face of positive identification. 2) YES. The defense argues that IF it can be proved that there was indeed a kidnapping, then there was no conspiracy to extort ransom. It is argued that only Jarang Askali was active while the rest remained passive and silent during the crime. Also, when the money was given to Jarang by the victims brother and father-in-law, Jammang Dahim was the only other kidnapper present. Court says: No! There was a conspiracy. The trial court found that all were armed and waited for Isiranis truck to stop. The others also agreed with Jarangs plan when he demanded P1600 for Isiranis release. The others even escorted Isirani to the abaca plantation where he was detained. They fully and directly cooperated in the crime, even though they would not receive anything in return. The defense also argues that the accused shouldnt be convicted of kidnapping with ransom, because their intention had only been to compel Isirani to fulfil his promise and pay P1600 for Hayanis hospital and medical fees. Court says: If that was the real purpose, then why did they kidnap Isirani? There was no need to go that far, because they simply could have threatened that they

would continue with the complaint for the injuries sustained by Hayani. AND, besides, even if their reason was just to compel Isirani to pay, it still counts as kidnapping with ransom, under RA 1084. ** Judgment is affirmed, but penalty is modified from death to reclusion perpetua, for failing to meet the necessary number of votes to impose the death penalty. PEOPLE v. SABARDAN May 21, 2004 Appellee: People of the Philippines Appellant: Domingo Sabardan Callejo, Sr., J: Facts: September 15, 1991 - Richelle Banluta, the 12-year old victim, left their house after being scolded by her adoptive mother for playing with the diaper of her niece. After leaving the house, she passed by Domingo Sabardans (51-year old appellant, also a catechist) apartment while the latter was on his way out to throw the garbage. The appellant convinced Richelle to stay with him in his apartment for the night. The apartment was just about 15 meters away from the Banluta residence. In the evening of that day, appellant entered the room, where Richelle was staying, naked. The latter told him to get out. She kicked him and pulled his hair. Appellant left the room. The following morning, Richelle wanted to go home already but Sabardan dissuaded her from doing so. Appellant left. Richelle wanted to leave the house but the house was locked down. September 18, 1991 - in the evening of her 4th day of detention, while Richelle was sitting on the sofa, appellant forced her to drink a glass of ice cold beer and threatened to kill her when she refused. Appellant started kissing her and touching her breasts. Richelle felt dizzy and fell unconscious. The following morning, Richelle found herself lying in bed completely naked and her vagina profusely bleeding. September 19, 1991 same chain of events transpired. Appellant forced Richelle to drink either beer or juice on four other occasions. Richelle felt dizzy afterwards and would wake up completely naked, feeling pains in her vagina. September 30, 1991 Richelle was only rescued when Elizabeth Luna, a neighbour, heard Richelle shouting inside the apartment. The former reported the event to Richelles brothers, who in turn reported it to the police. Appellant was not in the house when Richelle was extricated from the house. Medico-legal report concluded that Richelle was in a nonvirgin physical state; but no external signs of application of any form of violence. A case was filed with the RTC of Binangonan, Rizal against Sabardan. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for serious illegal detention with rape. Hence, this appeal.

Issues:

1. 2. Ruling: Ratio: 1.

WON the evidence presented conformed to the crime charged (serious illegal detention with rape). WON appellant should be guilty of the complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape (IMPORTANT). RTC ruling was modified. Domingo Sabardan was found guilty only of rape under Art. 335 of the RPC. WON the evidence presented conformed to the crime charged. YES The probative weight given to Richelles testimony cannot be defeated by her mistake in declaring that the apartment of the appellant was at No. 5-C Linaluz Street, when in fact, it was at No. 11-C Luz Street. The situs criminis (site of the crime) is not an essential element of rape. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge. o People v. Monieva: where inconsistencies in testimonies are not an essential element of the crime, they are insignificant.

But the trial court correctly sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE v. LORA Per Curiam March 30, 1982 The defendant Belinda Lora y Vequizo alias Lorena Sumilew was accused in the Court of First Instance of Davao of serious illegal detention with murder On May 26, 1975, accused Belinda Lora using the name Lorena Sumilew, applied as a housemaid in the household of the spouses Ricardo Yap and Myrna Belinda Lora was accepted as a housemaid in the residence of the Yaps and reported for work the following day, May 27, 1975. Her duties were to wash clothes and to look after Oliver Yap. On May 28, 1975, Mrs. Myrna Yap returned home from the market to find her mother-in-law and her husband panicky because their son, Oliver, and the maid, accused Belinda Lora were missing. The mother-in-law had found a ransom note at the stairway to the mezzanine floor. The note said that Oliver was to be sold to a couple and that the writer (defendant herein) needed money for her mothers hospitalization. May 30, 1975, upon waking up at around 6 oclock in his house, Ricardo Yap noticed that blood was dripping from the ceiling. He went upstairs, which was being utilized as abodega, to verify, and found his son placed inside the carton of Marlboro cigarettes. The head of the child was inside the carton while his feet protruded outside. His mouth was tied with stockings. The child was already dead. He had died of asphyxhia due to suffocation Issue WON the crime is serious illegal detention or murder Held: The crime actually committed is not the complex crime of kidnapping with murder, as found by the trial court, but the simple crime of murder qualified by treachery Kidnapping is a crime against liberty defined in Article 267, Title IX, Book 11 of the Revised Penal Code. The essence of kidnapping or serious illegal detention is the actual confinement or restraint of the victim or the deprivation of his liberty. Where there is no showing that the accused intended to deprive their victims of their liberty for some time and for some purpose, and there being no appreciable interval between their being taken and their being shot from which kidnapping may be inferred, the crimes committed were murder and frustrated murder and not the complex crimes of kidnapping with murder and kidnapping with frustrated murder In the instant case. the gagging of the child with stockings, placing him in a box with head down and legs upward and covering the box with some sacks and other boxes were only the methods of the defendant to commit murder. The child instantly died of suffocation. The demand for ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping with murder. The defendant was well aware that the child would be suffocated to death in a few moments after she left. The demand for ransom is only a part of the diabolic scheme of the defendant to murder the child, to conceal his body and then demand money before the discovery of the cadaver There being three aggravating circumstances, namely, lack of respect due to the tender age of the victim, cruelty and abuse of confidence and only one mitigating circumstance in favor of the defendant, she deserves the death penalty imposed upon her by the lower court WHEREFORE, the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified with treachery and

Failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence as to the presence of drug/sedative in the drinks given to Richelle cannot defeat their case. It suffices that the victim fell unconscious at the time the offender had carnal knowledge of her. o Drug or substance is only corroborative to Richelles testimony that she became dizzy and fell unconscious after being forced to drink. In People v. Del Rosario, we held that a test to determine the presence of any drug/sedative in the drinks given to a victim is not an indispensable element the prosecution for rape.

Though Richelle did not see Sabardan insert his penis to her vagina due to her unconsciousness, such carnal knowledge may also be proven through circumstantial evidence. The combination of all the circumstances present in the case point to conviction. o Sabardan also contends that, according to the medico-legals testimony, the lacerations found on Richelles vagina had already healed, and therefore submits that he could not have raped her. This argument fails since well-settled is the rule that healed lacerations do not necessarily negate rape. Appellant further argues that Richelle, in shouting Mang Domeng, tama na, ayaw ko na!, the latter consented to having sex with him. This argument is just so wrong. Court finds it deviant for a 12-year old, typical, nave, bashful and chaste Filipina, to be consenting to sexual intercourse.

2.

WON appellant should be guilty of the complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape. NO In light of the evidence on record, the original and primordial intention of the appellant in keeping Richelle in his apartment was to rape her and not deprive her of her liberty. Hence, appellant is guilty of only rape under Art. 355, part. 1 of the RPC, and not of the complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape under Art. 267, in relation to Art. 335 and Art. 48.

appreciating the aggravating circumstances already indicated above, We hereby impose the penalty of death. PEOPLE v. PAGALASAN June 18, 2003 J. Callejo Facts: George and Desiree Lim and their three young children, one of whom was Christopher Lim resided at Villa Consuelo Subdivision, General Santos City. The spouses hired a security guard, Ferdinand Cortez. On September 4, 1994, four armed men, each armed with handguns, two of whom were holding hand grenades, barged into the kitchen. They tied Ferdinand Cortez, and ransacked the house, getting cash and valuables. They dragged George and Christopher out of the bedroom, through the sala, to the garage, to Georges Nissan car which they used to drive away from the scene of the crime. They drove to Sitio Tupi where three of the masked men alighted the vehicle bringing Christopher with them. George was transferred to the front seat and was told that he would be brought to Maasim. However, as they were on their way to Maasim, Michael Pagasalan and George encountered a police checkpoint. Pagalasan was then arrested and George was brought to the police station. Michael gave his confession under custodial investigation with the assistance of Atty. Falgui. In his confession Michael admitted that he and three other men, Aladin, Ferdinand, and Bong had kidnapped George and his son Christopher but he alleged that he did so only under orders of Ronnie Cabalo. In light of Michaels confession, Aladin Cabalo, Ronie Puntuan and Fernando Quizon were arrested. In the mean time, George received a letter on September 6, 1994, ordering the release of Michael and Ronie Puntuan because they were innocent and demanding 3,000,000 for the release of Christopher. On September 9, 1994, George received another letter this time informing him that the kidnappers did not want the military to be involved nor innocent people to be prejudiced. The following morning, Christopher was rescued by the police without any ransom being paid. Michael was then charged with kidnapping for ransom and violation of PD 1866 before the MTC of General Santos City. The trial court in Criminal Case No. 11602 ACQUITTED the accused Michael Pagalasan and found him GUILTY in Criminal Case No. 11098 and was sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of death. Issues: 1. 2. 3. Held: 1. WON the accused is guilty of kidnapping Christopher. YES WON the penalty of death was properly imposed by the trial court. NO WON the accused is guilty of kidnapping George. NO 3.

the element of extorting ransom are the three handwritten letters: the first received by Desiree on September 4, the second on September 6, and the last on September 9. The Court ruled that there was no demand for ransom made in the first letter given to Desiree. As regards to the second letter, the Court ruled that the sender of the second letter could have been acting independently of the appellant and his coconspirators in order to profit from the kidnapping. Assuming arguendo that the letter did come from one of the coconspirators, the same is not binding on the accused absent evidence that he knew of and concurred with the said ransom. The conspiracy forged between the accused and his coconspirators ended on September 4 when the former was arrested. The demand for ransom in the third letter was a new and independent project of the appellants co-conspirators, growing out of their own malice, without any priori knowledge on the part of the accused. The Court found the appellant guilty of slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the RPC. The appellant is a private individual

PEOPLE v. CASTILLO Date: March 10, 2004 Ponente: Per Curiam Parties: Appellee: People of the Philippines Appellants: Elizabeth Castillo and Evangeline

Padayhag Nature: Automatic Review of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, Br. 260 Relevant Law: Art. 267, Revised Penal Code Facts:

Elizabeth Castillo and Evangeline Padayhag were found guilty of qualified kidnapping and serious illegal detention, and were sentenced to death. Summary of the incident: March 1, 1995, BF Homes, Paraaque: Evangeline Padayhag on-board a tricycle fetched Rocky, son of Mr. and Mrs. Luis De Guzman Cebrero, at their residence and brought the child to a nearby Mcdonalds and were later joined by another woman named as Elizabeth Castillo. (The three proceeded to a house far from the "McDonalds" where Rocky slept "four times". Informed that Rocky did not attend school, Mr. Cebrero then called up his friends and went to the police station to report that his son was missing. Later that night, Luis Cebrero received a telephone call from a woman asking for the formers ATM Card, and asked him how much money he had in his account (PhP40K). On March 2, a woman called the Cebreros again, this time demanding one million pesos. Cebrero consequently instructed his wife to raise some money. From the bank, Mrs. Cebrero withdrew P800,000.00 in P1,000.00 denomination. The bank provided Mrs. Cebrero a list containing the serial numbers of the money withdrawn. On March 4, Luis Cebrero was instructed via a call to be in Paco, Obando, Bulacan, alone, at about 2:00 a.m. There, a "Farmacia Dilag" was located and Cebrero was instructed to follow the street located beside the pharmacy until he reaches the church called "Sabadista" where he should drop the money. Cebrero did so, and the following morning at around 9:00 AM, Rocky was dropped at his parents house.

The essential elements for this crime is deprivation of liberty of the victim under any of the circumstances coupled with indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect the sme. There must be a purposeful or knowing action by the accused to forcibly restrain the victim coupled with intent. The collective, concerted and synchronized acts of the appellant and his cohorts before, during, after and the kidnapping constitute indubitable proof that the appellant and his three companions conspired with each other to attain a common objective: to kidnap George and Christopher and to detain them illegally. The appellant was a principal by direct participation. The trial court erred in imposing the penalty of death because the prosecution failed to prove the element of extorting ransom. There is no presumption to extort ransom in the crime of kidnapping. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The only evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove

2.

An operation to capture Castillo and Padayhag was conducted, and Padayhag was caught in Navotas, while Castillo was arrested in Dipolog City. PhP277,000 was found with Castillo while no money was found with Padayhag. Upon arraignment on 10 May 1995, both Castillo and Padayhag initially pleaded guilty, but later withdrew their plea of guilty on 18 May 1995. They entered a plea of not guilty on 3 August 1995, claiming that they were forced into confessing their guilt. The trial court convicted appellants and imposed on them the death penalty. Issues: Is the trial court correct in convicting Elizabeth Castillo and Evangeline Padayhag guilty of Qualified Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention and sentencing both appellants to death? For Castillo, YES she is guilty. For Padayhag, NO she is not. Held: Conviction of Elizabeth Castillo affirmed with modification, while Evangeline Padayhag acquitted and ordered released. Ratio: To sustain a conviction for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must establish the following: (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. Appellant Castillos Liability Whether or not her employer failed to pay her salary is irrelevant. No amount of perceived injustice can serve as justification for any person to retaliate through the commission of another crime. Castillos claim of injustice cannot justify in any way her demand for ransom. Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity. Thus, even if she had a right to demand payment of her unpaid wages, the money she actually demanded and eventually received, is still ransom. Castillos reliance on her low educational level is similarly unavailing. The penalty for kidnapping for ransom is the singular and indivisible penalty of death. This bars the application of any alternative, mitigating or aggravating circumstance. Rockys testimony leaves no room for doubt. Only six years of age when he testified, Rocky was candid and direct in his recollection. [He testified that it was Padayhag who fetched him from his house and took him to McDonalds, where they met Castillo, that they took him to a faraway house that he was unfamiliar with, and that he spent 4 days (4 sleeps)] But, Castillos testimony also helped convict her. According to her testimony: She instructed Padayhag to fetch Rocky on 1 March 1995, and that she had no permission from Rockys parents to take him. She admitted to taking him to her sisters house. She called the victims dad and Mr. Cebrero was angry with her and demanded to know where his son was. He also asked her how much money she wanted, and if she hurt his son. She claimed not to have

answered his question re: the money and that she just put the phone down. At the pretense of looking for a job, she placed herself at the time and place where the pay-off occurred (Obando, Bulacan) She was unable to explain how the ransom money was found in her possession when she was caught by policemen in Dipolog. She admitted going to the pay-off site on the day Mr. Cebrero was told to leave the ransom for Rockys release. She said she found at the site a black plastic bag filled with money and brought it home. However, in her testimony before the trial court, she maintained that the first time she saw the same plastic bag was when it mysteriously appeared in her luggage when she went to Dipolog She said what spurred her to take Rocky was her desire to get her unpaid wages from the Cebreros She did not inform the Cebreros of their exact whereabouts

Castillo pointed out that Rocky came along freely with them, was not harmed, and was even cared for during his detention. This argument is pointless. The essence of kidnapping is deprivation of liberty. Where the victim in a kidnapping case is a minor, it becomes even more irrelevant whether the offender forcibly restrained the victim. Leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way home, even if he had the freedom to roam around the place of detention, would still amount to deprivation of liberty. For under such a situation, the childs freedom remains at the mercy and control of the abductor. Appellant Padayhags Liability The same cannot be said of Padayhag. The prosecution failed to prove Padayhags guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Padayhags sole involvement in this entire episode is her act of fetching Rocky and bringing him to where Castillo was waiting for them. There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag acted in concert with Castillo to commit the same criminal act. Conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the commission of the crime itself. Conspiracy is established by the presence of two concurrent factors: (1) singularity of intent; and (2) unity in execution of an unlawful objective. Performance of an act that contributes to the goal of another is not enough. The act must be motivated by the same unlawful intent. Padayhags act of fetching Rocky is not conclusive proof of her complicity with Castillos plan, a plan Padayhag did not even know. Castillo deceived Padayhag into fetching Rocky, saying that she just wanted to spend time with the boy. (It was pointed out that Padayhag only finished up to the 2nd grade, contributing to proof of her naivet.). It is clear that she acted with the full belief that Castillo was doing nothing wrong. More proof of her innocence: She left when Castillo brought the boy to her sisters house in Caloocan and she never visited nor contacted Castillo afterwards. She refused to go with Castillo when the latter suddenly tried to coax her to go to Dipolog. None of the money used as ransom was found in her possession and her involvement in the pay-off was never established. The prosecution failed to prove Padayhags guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The act of fetching the boy, by itself, does not constitute a criminal offense. By itself, it is not even sufficient to make her an accomplice. For a person to be considered an accomplice there must be a community of design, that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal, the co-accused concurs with the latter. There was therefore a need for clear and convincing proof that this single act was committed to kidnap the child. The prosecution failed to prove this.

PEOPLE V. JATULAN Date: Apr. 24, 2007 Ponente: Garcia Parties: Nature: Petitioner: People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee Respondent: Judith Lito Jatulan y Ponce, accused-appellant

only 5 years old and unfamiliar with where he is - it was impossible for him to escape. Accused is charged with kidnapping for ransom - which calls for the death penalty due to the ransom. However, since the death penalty is suspended, the accused is thus sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua without parole. US v. ARCEO DATE: 1904 PONENTE: Johnson, J. PARTIES: Complainant: US Defendant: Lorenzo Arceo RELEVANT LAW: Article 491, Penal Code he who shall enter the residence of another against the will of the tenant shall be punished If the act shall be done with violence or intimidation the penalty shall be greater FACTS: On February 20, 1903, around 8 or 9 pm, Arceo and two others entered the house of Alejo Tiongson without the permission of any of the tenants o All three were armed, one with a gun and two with bolos o Snuffed out the candle which was the sole source of lighting in the house upon entering (Aggravating Circumstance nighttime) Tiongson and his wife were asleep while Marcela, the wifes sister, was still awake sewing o Marcela immediately woke Tiongson up upon seeing the men inside the house One of the accused wounded Tiongson and all three took some money from the house and took Marcela as well to the fields where they ill-treated her Trial Court guilty of trespass into anothers residence with violence and intimidation o AC: nighttime ISSUE(S): 1. WON the court was correct in convicting the accused as such? HELD/RATIO (per issue): 1. Yes, the violence in entering the residence of another is not limited only to the manner of entry a. Court believes the violence contemplated in the provision relates to conduct immediately after entry into anothers residence without consent i. Being armed with deadly weapons ii. Immediately commits act of violence b. The inviolability of the home is one of the most fundamental of all individual rights. Privacy of the home is considered sacred c. Against the will of the owner cannot mean an express prohibition by the owner must be needed before entry without consent can be done i. Entrance is generally forbidden under the spirit of the law unless consent has been given d. Cannot be punished as burglary because of intent i. Burglary punishes unlawful entry with intent to commit a felony inside the residence 1. Absorbs nocturnity/nighttime ii. Art 491 punished the very act of unlawful entry itself 1. Aggravated by nocturnity/nighttime

Review of the Decision of the CA RelevantLaws: Art 267, RPC Facts: Feb. 13, 1995 Accused (Jatulan and 3 others - Paul and Meil Liporada, and Glenbert Denyega) enticed 5 year old Karwin Amado by offering him a Shaider toy, but they had to go up the mountain to get it. The mother reported missing child to the police Feb. 14, 1195 Receiving of the ransom note (P250K) from the accused to the victims parents. Stipulations: The sister was ordered to do it beside the school at 3pm and the police should not know of this. Had no money, mother reported to the Presidential AntiCrime Commission (PACC). The Task Force Habagat of the PACC ordered surveillance, investigation, and operation using fake money for the scheduled pay-off the next day Feb. 15, 1995 Karen (sister) went to the specified place with an attache case of fake money. All the accused were present in the pay-off. As the boys were walking away carrying the case, PACC agents who were monitoring the pay-off from a distance, suddenly appeared. P. Liporada and Denyega were accosted, while the 2 other boys ran away. Both were eventually captured. Feb. 16, 1995 Jatulan was captured in a hut, where they also rescued the victim. Jatulan claims that his counsel, Benjamin Ponce Jr was the mastermind, who remains at large. Jatulan is charged with kidnapping. Other 3 suspects were released for lack of evidence. The accused argues that there was no deprivation of liberty since the victim voluntarily went with him and once brought to the hut, was left alone. So the victim could have done anything he wished to do, including escaping. Issue: WON there is kidnapping even though the victim voluntarily went with the captor and there was no deprivation of liberty. Held: NO.

The Court held in the case of People v Santos (283 SCRA 443) that the fact that the victim voluntarily went with the accused did not remove the element of deprivation of liberty, because the victim went with the accused on a false inducement, without which the victim would not have done so. In a kidnapping, the victim need not be taken by the accused forcibly, what is controlling in the act of the offender in detaining the victim against his will after the offender is able to take the victim in his custody. In short, the carrying away of the victim in the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention can ether be made forcibly or fraudulently. As in this case, the captor led the victim to believe he is going to receive a toy from the former and thus voluntarily going with him. However when the victim expressed his desire to go home, the accused told him to stay put because he had to wait for the ransom. Effectively removing the voluntariness in the issue. However, assuming arguendo that the victim was indeed free to go home whenever he pleased, he was

e.

Conviction is affirmed

PEOPLE V. CRISOSTOMO Feb 17, 1923 Reyes Parties: appellants: Pedro Crisostomo, Lorenzo Alcoba, Casimiro Garde; Segundo Espiritu, Primitivo Alcoba, Bartolome Caguiat Nature Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Cavite Relevant Laws Art 445, RPC Facts CFI Cavite: appellants: guilty of consummated crime of abduction through violence: Pedro Crisostomo, Lorenzo Alcoba, Casimiro Garde (principals, sentenced 14 yrs, 8 mos, 1 day of reclusion temporal); Segundo Espiritu, Primitivo Alcoba, Bartolome Caguiat (accomplices, sentenced 3 to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, with the accessories prescribed by law and to pay each a 1/6 part of the cost) *Crisostomo: further sentenced to pay P500 as an endowment - Appellants Claim (For Appeal) CRI erred: in holding that the evidence of prosecution was sufficient and that the facts alleged in the information were proven beyond a reasonable doubt in holding that the conspiracy and connivance between the accused at the time of committing the supposed crime of abduction were duly proven In sentencing the accused Crisostomo to pay P500 In holding that the crime committed by the accused falls within the provision of Art 445, RPC and in sentencing them in said article - 8 or 9:00 am, Dec 26, 1920, Macaria Gabriel, the offended party, and Crisostomo were found in the barrio of Salinas (Bacoor, Cavite) by her brother Constantino - Macaria: she was abducted against her will - defense: there was an agreement bet her and Crisostomo had escaped from Macarias parental house (but Court ruled it improbable since she was 30 y/o, should be more reflexive and cautious; daytime; was with her aunt) (also, Crisostomo later admitted to Lt. Sotto of the Constabulary that it was advisable to abduct Macaria) - evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt that while Macaria and her aunt Candida Acuna were walking in the direction of their houses from that of Gregoria Acuna (to whom Macaria had paid the sum of P30), Crisostomo met them on the way. - Crisostomo, Lorenzo Alcoba, and Casimiro Garde, dragged Macaria and took her to a rice field (protested and fought back); Segundo Espiritu, Primitivo Alcoba, and Bartolome Caguiat prevented Candida from helping her niece - Gregoria Acuna heard cries; attacked the men holding Macaria with a club - they let go of her finally; they ran to the house and told Constantino (who chased after the men) Issue: - WON the element of unchaste designs is present - What crime can they be convicted of? Held/ Ratio: 1) NO. unchaste designs, the other element in abduction through violence, must be proven - Crisostomos intention: to get married to her in Bacoor

- Court ruled that it wasnt unchaste since they had no impediments to marriage - ... 3. That it be committed with unchaste designs, that is to say, with an intent to abuse her. If such an intention does not exist, the act will no longer constitute the crime of abduction, but a crime against liberty, or that of illegal detention defined and punished in Art 495... - Macaria testified that Crisostomo kissed her many times while dragging her; but she was seasick and became unconscious, so it cant be proven (C. denied; accidental bumping of heads) - also, it does not appear from the evidence that the accused or any of them committed any slightly unchaste act (despite the fact that they were in control, had enough time to if they wanted to) - ILLEGAL DETENTION- since there is no argument that the accused deprived the offended party of her liberty wihtout placing her in an inclosure; because illegal detention might consist not only in imprisoning a person but also in detaining her or depriving her in any manner of her liberty ART 481- Any private individual who shall lock up or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor - defendants conspiring and confederating together, did intentionally, unlawfully, and criminally... through force kidnap [sic] Macaria... - BUT, was there proof of conspiracy?? - even if no witnesses testified to having seen or heard the accused conspire or confederate, it was apparent because of the simultaneous act of the defendants *how about ATTEMPTED COERCION? - NO, since there is doubt whether the acts committed by the defendant may be held as directly tending to compel the offended party to get married Dissent: J. Araullo, J. Villamor: - Crisostomo DID kiss Macaria; element of unchaste designs was apparent - US v. Ramirez (39 Phil 738): In a criminal action for abduction, in order to demonstrate the presence of the lewd designs, actual illicit criminal relations with the person abducted need not be shown. The intent to seduce the girl is sufficient. The evil purpose need not be established by positive evidence but may be inferred from acts or conduct proved SARABIA v. PEOPLE FACTS: On June 23, 1991, at around 8 o'clock in the evening, complainant Josephine Picos-Mapalad and her then boyfriend, complainant Anastacio Mapalad (now the former's husband), were dating at one of the grandstands inside the Garcia Sports Complex in Tagabilaran City. Petitioner Sarabia, then a member of the city police force, on that particular evening was passing by the Garcia Sports Complex on his way to his house. He was carrying with him his service gun and flashlight. He saw the two lovers and focused his flashlight on them. According to the prosecution, petitioner, with intimidation, pointed his gun at the two lovers and forced them to perform sexual acts against their will. Petitioner then extorted P100.00 from them. Petitioner made complainant Anastacio Mapalad buy him a cigarette outside the complex, and, while he was gone, petitioner forced complainant Picos-Mapalad to masturbate his penis. Afterwards, petitioner allowed complainants to leave with the threat that he would kill them if they reported the incident to anyone. The following morning, complainants went to Panglao and stayed there for several days to recuperate and to decide what action they would take. With the help of their relatives, they reported the matter to the police. As a result, three informations for grave coercion were filed against petitioner.

Petitioner denied the allegations against him. He claimed that he merely confronted complainants and directed them to go home as the place was dangerous.

ISSUE: 1. Are the witnesses credible? YES. 2. Is there double jeopardy? NO. HELD: 1. It is settled that when a conviction hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the assessment of the trial court is accorded the highest degree of respect. Witnesses were credible and even if the matter wasnt reported immediately, this didnt make their accusations unreliable. As the trial court said, complainants cannot be faulted for this considering that their tormentor was no ordinary delinquent but a city policeman. He threatened complainants at gunpoint that he would harm them if they reported the matter to anyone. Complainants are both unschooled. At the time of the commission of the crime, Josephine Picos-Mapalad was a 17-hear old laundry woman, while Anastacio Mapalad was a simple grocery bagger. It needs no stretch of the imagination that when petitioner threatened to kill them if they reported the matter to the authorities, they believed entirely and utterly that he could and would make good on his threat. 2. To raise the defense of double or second jeopardy, the following elements must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. The third requisite, identity of offenses, is absent in this case. The crime for which petitioner now stands charged is not the same as the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of person for which he was convicted. Neither is the former an attempt to commit the latter or a frustration thereof. And the former crime does not necessarily include, and is not necessarily included in, the first crime charged.

PETITION DENIED. GANAAN v. IAC Date: October 16, 1986 Ponente: Gutierrez, Jr., J. Parties: Edgardo Ganaan, petitioner Intermediate Appellate Court and People of the Phils, respondents Relevant law: Section 1, RA 4200: Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described: It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal

FACTS: Oct. 22, 1975 (morning): complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon (a teacher) were in the living room of complainants residence discussing the terms of the withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault which they filed against Atty. Leonardo Laconico. Pintor made a call to Laconico. Laconico also telephoned appellant Ganaan (a lawyer) that same morning to come to his office and advise him about the case because his regular lawyer was on a business trip. When Pintor called up, Laconico requested appellant to listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone extension so as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the settlement. Appellant heard Pintor enumerate the conditions for the withdrawal of the complaint P8,000, public apology by Laconico, P1000 for the Don Bosco Faculty club, transfer of Laconicos son to another school or another section, affidavit of desistance by Laconico on the maltreatment case earlier filed against Montebon, allow Montebon to continue teaching at Don Bosco, not to divulge truth about the settlement of the case to the media, P20,000 attorneys fees fir Pintor. Laconico agreed to the conditions and was told to wait for instructions for the delivery of money. Laconico insisted that Pintor himself should receive the money (and not his wife). He also alerted his friend Colonel Zulueta of the Philippine Constabulary. Pintor was arrested at the Igloo Restaurant when he received the money, and was charged for robbery/extortion. Pintor charged appellant and Laconico with violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act. Lower court: found Ganaan and Laconico guilty of violating Section 1 of RA 4200. IAC: affirmed lower court, holding that the communication without the knowledge and consent of the complainant, which was overheard by the appellant is private in nature and covered by RA 4200. Hence, present petition. ISSUE: WON an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices in Section 1 of the Act, such that its use to overhear a private conversation would constitute unlawful interception of communications between the parties using a telephone line HELD: NO. Petition granted. Petitioner acquitted of the crime of violation of RA 4200. The main issue revolved around the meaning of the phrase any other device or arrangement. When the bill was finalized into a statute, no mention was made of telephones in the enumeration of devices commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph, detectaphone or walkie talkie or tape recorder or however otherwise described. The omission was not a mere oversight. Telephone party lines were intentionally deleted from the provisions of the Act. The law refers to a tap of a wire or cable or the use of a device or arrangement for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept or record the spoken words. An extension line cannot be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictagraph or other enumerated devices as the use thereof cannot be considered as tapping the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for the purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use. The phrase device or arrangement, although not exclusive to

investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.

that enumerated therein should be construed to comprehend the instruments of the same or similar nature, that is, instruments the use of which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. It refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or partied being overheard because, by their very nature, they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting, or recording a telephone conversation. An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common now and the person calling should safely presume that the party he is calling probably has an extension telephone and runs at a risk of a third party listening. The court is of the view that the mere act of listening, in order to be punishable must strictly be with the use of the enumerated devices in RA 4200 or others of similar nature, and an extension telephone is not among such devices or arrangements. GARCILLANO v. INFORMATION (2008) Nachura, J: Relevant Law: Art. VI, Sec. 21, CONST. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected. FACTS: Tapes ostensibly containing wiretapped conversation purportedly between PGMA and a high-ranking officer of Comelec surfaced. The tapes were notoriously called, Hello Garci tapes allegedly containing GMAs instruction to manipulate in her favour the results of the 2004 presidential elections. HOR COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC

2. 3. 4.

WON 1st petition is moot WON the Senate may continue the conduct of legislative inquiry on wiretapping Won the publication in the internet cures the lack of publication in the Official Gazette

HELD: FIRST ISSUE: Yes, petitioners have standing. 1st Petition: Yes. Petitioner Garcillano stands to be directly injured if the Garci tapes were played in Congress since the public believes he is one of the voices in the recordings. 2nd Petition: Yes. The petitioners satisfy the locus standi requirement by merely being citizens since they assert a constitutional right that is threatened to be violated. They are also taxpayers and the legislative inquiry necessarily involves the use of public funds. Finally, the issue is of transcendental importance so locus standi of the petitioners must be affirmed.

SECOND ISSUE: Yes. The recordings were already played in the House and the committee reports were already submitted. Hence, there is nothing more to prohibit. THIRD ISSUE: No. The Senate could not pursue the inquiry in aid of legislation because they did not publish the rules of procedure as required by the Constitution. Petitioners: No. The Senate Rules on Inquiries in Aid of Legislation were published in 1995 and 2006. No publication was made for the 14 th Congress. SC: Agreed with the petitioners. Even if the Senate rules were not amended, they still must be published every time a new Congress comes in pursuant to Sec. 21, Art. VI which provides that the inquiries in aid of legislation can only be conducted in accordance with duly published rules of procedure. The requisite of publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic requirement of due process. Publication should be in the Official Gazette or newspaper of general circulation (Art. 2, CC) The phrase duly published rules of procedure in Sec. 21, Art. VI, Const. requires the Senate to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it. The composition of the Senate also changes at the end of each term. The Senate under the 1987 Const. is not a continuing body because less than a majority of the Senators continue to the next Congress. The consequence is that the Rules of Procedure must be republished by the Senate every expiry of the term of the 12 Senators. Absence of any amendment to the rules cannot justify the Senates defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of Sec. 21, Art. VI of the Const. Publication in the OG/newspaper of general circ is mandatory to comply with the due process requirement because the Rules of Procedure put a persons liberty at risk. A person who violates the rules of procedure could be arrested and detained by the Senate.

On June 8, 2005, Minority Floor Leader Francis Escudero delivered a privilege speech to set in motion a congressional investigation on the Hello Garci Tapes A Tale of Two Tapes During said investigation, NBI Director Atty. Alan Paguia presented 7 alleged original tapes of the Garci scandal. The admissibility was debated but they were eventually played in Congress. Petitioner Virgilio Garcillano filed a petition for prohibition in the Supreme Court to prohibit the respondent House Committees from using the illegally obtained wiretapped conversations.The House investigation was abruptly stopped. After more than 2 years, Sen. Panfilo Lacson roused the Garci issue with a privilege speech (The Lighthouse That Brought Darkness) which was referred to the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security where 2 bills seeking to regulate the sale and purchase of wiretapping equipment and prohibit AFP from participating in the elections were then pending. Sen. Gordon and Sen. Defensor-Santiago objected to the use of the Garci tapes in the hearings because it will violate RA 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

First Petition: Seeks to prevent the playing of the Garci tapes and subsequent inclusion in the committee reports (Petitioner Garcilliano) dismissed for being moot, already played Second Petition: Seeks to prohibit the legislative inquiry on wiretapping GRANTED. ISSUES: 1. WON petitioners have standing

FOURTH ISSUE: No. Eventhoughthe Senate published its Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Legislative Inquiries on October 31, 2008 in 2 newspapers of general circulation the majority said it still did not cure the defect.

Respondents: RA 8792 or Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 allows publication of Rules in the internet. The Senate rules on conduct of legislative inquiry were published in the internet. SC: No. That law only recognizes the admissibility of electronic message as evidence. It does not make the internet a medium for publication of laws, rules and regulations. Dissenting opinion: Puno, C.J. The ponencia did not comply with the Neri Ruling. Neri ruling said that not all orders issued or proceedings conducted by the Senate according to the unpublished rules are null and void. Only those that result in violation of rights of witnesses must be invalidated because the objective of Sec. 21, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution is to protect the witnesses appearing in the legislative inquiries. The ponencia did not specify the rights of the witnesses that were violated by the current Senate inquiry. He stressed that he still dissents with the Neri ruling. (1) That decision was inconsistent. It invalidated the entire Rules on Legislative Inquiries of the Senate but used Sec. 18 of which to justify the illegality of the contempt order on Neri. (2) It was settled in Arnault v. Nazareno that Senate is a continuing body. One time publication suffices as long as there are no amendments to the rules.