Title 9 Liberty and Security

Title Nine
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND

SECURITY
Article 292. Revelation of industrial secrets
Chapter One. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY

Section One
Article 267.
detention
Article 268.
Article 269.
Illegal Detention
Kidnapping and
serious
illegal
Slight illegal Detention

Unlawful arrest
Section Two Kidnapping of Minors

Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a
minor
Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his
home
Section Three
Article 272.
Article 273.
Article 274.
in
Slavery and servitude

Slavery
Exploitation of Child Labor
Service rendered under compulsion
Article 267.
Kidnapping
illegal detention
1.
2.
3.
4.
b.
c.
d.
Section Two Trespass to dwelling

Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling
Article 281. Other forms of trespass
Chapter Three DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF

SECRETS
Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure
of
correspondence
Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of
office
Offender is a private individual;

He kidnaps or detains another, or in any
other manner deprives the latter of his
liberty;
The act of detention or kidnapping must be
illegal;
In the commission of the offense, any of
the following circumstances is present:
a.
Chapter Two CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
Section Three Threats and Coercion

Article 282. Grave threats
Article 283. Light threats
Article 284. Bond for good behavior
Article 285. Other light threats
Article 286. Grave coercions
Article 287. Light coercions
Article 288. Other similar coercions (compulsory
purchase of merchandise and payment of
wages
by means of tokens)
Article 289.
Formation, maintenance and
prohibition of
combination
of
capital or labor through violence or
threats
serious
Elements:
payment of debt
Section One Abandonment of helpless persons

and
exploitation of minors
Article 275. Abandonment of persons in danger
and
abandonment of ones own victim
Article 276. Abandoning a minor
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by person
entrusted with his custody; indifference of
parents
Article 278. Exploitation of minors
Article 279. Additional penalties for other
offenses
and
The kidnapping lasts for more

than 3 days;
It is committed simulating
public authority;
Any serious physical injuries
are
inflicted
upon
the
person
kidnapped or detained or threats to kill
him are made; or
The person kidnapped or
detained is a minor, female, or a public
officer.
If the offender is a public

officer, the crime is arbitrary detention.
The public officer must have a duty under
the law to detain a person to be liable for
arbitrary detention. If he has no such duty,
and he detains a person, he is liable under
this article.
When the victim is a minor and
the accused is one of the parents, the
penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not
exceeding 300 pesos or both (Article 271,
par. 2)
The
essential
element
of
kidnapping is the deprivation of the
offended partys liberty under any of
the four instances enumerated. But when
the kidnapping was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom, it is not
necessary that one or any of circumstances
enumerated be present.
When the kidnapping is done
for the purpose of extorting ransom from
the victim or any other person, actual
demand for ransom is not necessary, as
long as it can be proven that the
kidnapping was done for the purpose of
extorting ransom.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

94
It is essential in the crime of

illegal detention that there be actual
confinement or restriction of the person of
the offended party.
Not necessary that the victim
be placed in an enclosure, as long as he is
deprived, in any manner, of his liberty.
Detention is illegal when not
ordered by competent authority or not
permitted by law.
Special Complex Crime of
Kidnapping with murder when the victim
is killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention, the maximum penalty (death)
shall be imposed.
Where the victim is taken from
one place to another solely for the purpose
of killing him, the crime committed is
murder.
Maximum penalty is imposed in
the ff. cases:
o
If the purpose of detention is to
extort ransom
o
When the victim is killed or
dies as a consequence of the detention
o
When the victim is raped
o
When the victim is subjected to
torture or dehumanizing acts.
Conspiracy to extort ransom
makes all the conspirators liable under this
article, including those who did not take
part in the money.
Illegal detention
Committed by a private
individual, who
unlawfully deprives a
person of his liberty
Crime against personal
liberty
Arbitrary detention
Committed by a public
officer or employee, who
detains a person without
legal ground
Crime against the
fundamental laws of the
state
People vs. Tomio

A Japanese national named Tomio was arrested after being
implicated for possessing marijuana. Two other Japanese
claimed that they paid money for Tomios release and so
they held Tomio under their custody, asking for the amount
they allegedly advance to the police.
HELD: Even if the two accused only wanted to recover the
money they allegedly advanced to the police, the crime is
still kidnapping because of the essential element of
deprivation of liberty.
People vs. Mercado
The accused held a knife against his girlfriends sister for
nearly five hours. The victims ordeal ended only after the
barangay captain was able to subdue the accused.
HELD: The crime is kidnapping because the victim was

actually restrained or deprived of her liberty,
notwithstanding the fact that the accused only wanted the
victim to produce her.
People vs. Del Socorro
Del Socorro grabbed a little girl and brought the child to a
doctor, asking for 700 pesos in return. The doctor gave the
child to her spinster aunt.
HELD: The defense that the child voluntarily went with the
accused is belied by the fact that the child openly resisted
the abduction and even had to be carried to the jeep.
People vs. Lim
Lim took in two young girls who were loitering in front of
her sari-sari store. Lim sent the younger girl to Cebu while
the older girl stayed in the store. Days later, the girls
father arrived to bring the two girls back with him.
HELD: There is no kidnapping in this case because the two
minors voluntarily entered Lims residence and there was
no showing that there was actual confinement or
restriction of the person of the offended party. Both girls
were free to go in and out of the store.
People vs. Padica
A 14-year old boy was brought to a sugarcane plantation,
where he was shot and killed immediately. The accused
demanded ransom soon after.
HELD: Where the evident purpose of taking the victim was
to kill him, and from the acts of the accused it cannot be
inferred that the latters purpose was to actually detain or
deprive the victim of his liberty, the subsequent killing of
the victim did not constitute the crime of murder. The
demand for ransom did not convert the crime into
kidnapping since no deprivation of liberty was involved.
People vs. Luartes
Luartes kidnapped a 3-yr old girl outside Isettan Recto. The
girl was in the mall with her mother, who lost her. Luartes
defense was that he was merely helping the lost girl find
her mother. He says he had no intention of kidnapping
Junichi and that the prosecution witnesses (police officers)
merely misconstrued his actuations.
HELD: If indeed accused-appellant was trying to help the
lost child, why then did he misrepresent himself as her
uncle? And, if his intention was only to help the child look
for her mother, why did he have to board a passenger
jeepney taking the child with him?
The essence of kidnapping under Art. 267 is the actual
deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the intent
of the accused to effect it. The crime in this case clearly
comes under par. 4 of Art. 267 of the Penal Code. The
detention was committed by Luartes who was a private
individual and the person kidnapped was a three (3)-year
old minor.

95
People vs. Pavillare

Pavillare was convicted of kidnapping an Indian national
and sentenced to death. He argues that he should have
been convicted of simple robbery only and not kidnapping
with ransom because the evidence proves that their prime
motive was to obtain money and that the complainant was
detained only for two hours.
HELD: The pretense that the money was supposedly in
exchange for the dropping of the charges for rape is not
supported by the evidence. The accused released the
complainant when the money was handed over to him and
after counting the money, he and his companions
immediately left the scene. This clearly indicated that the
payment of the ransom money is in exchange for the liberty
of the private complainant.
The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours
does not alter the nature of the crime committed. The
crime of kidnapping is committed by depriving the victim of
liberty whether he is placed in an enclosure or simply
restrained from going home. As squarely expressed in
Article 267, above-quoted the penalty of death is
imposable where the detention is committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom, and the duration of the
detention is not material.
People vs. Ballenas
Accused Ballenas pointed a short firearm to Wilma and
Consorcia inside their home. Accused told Wilma to
accompany him to Maria his girlfriend. Wilma refused, as
they were about to eat supper. Consorcia also told her
daughter, Wilma not to go out because it was already dark.
Accused Ballenas forced Wilma to go out with him. Because
of the abduction, Consorcia sought the help of a neighbor,
Andres but to no avail, as Andres shut the door on her for
fear of Ballenas as the latter is known as a member of the
dreaded Sparrow Unit of the NPA.
The following morning, Consorcia reported the abduction of
Wilma to her son-in-law who is a member of the Integrated
National Police. She learned from Aurelio that Wilma was
already dead. The police then proceeded to the scene of
the incident. Ballenas was found guilty of forcible
abduction with rape and sentenced to Reclusion perpetua.
HELD:
BALLENAS committed the crime of forcible
abduction with rape on March 20, 1987, before the passage
of Republic Act 7659 or the Heinous Crimes Law that took
effect on December 31, 1993. At the time that BALLENAS
committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape, the
penalty then applicable was reclusion perpetua to death.
The use by BALLENAS of a firearm in committing the crime,
a fact duly alleged in the information and proven in court,
should have warranted the imposition of the death penalty.
However, since the crime took place prior to the
implementation of RA 7659, the trial court correctly ruled
that the penalty that can be imposed on BALLENAS is
reclusion perpetua. Hence, despite the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty herein of
reclusion perpetua would not be affected. Under Article 63
of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua should be applied regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance that may have attended the
commission of a crime.
People v. Silongan, 401 SCRA 459 (2003)

FACTS: Businessman Alexander Saldaa went to
Isulan, Sultan Kudarat with Rejuso, Tormis, and Cinco to
meet with Macapagal Silongan alias Commander Lambada
concerning the gold nuggets that were purportedly being
sold by the latter. During the meeting Macapagal told them
that someone in his family has just died and that he has to
pick up an elder brother in hence, they had better transact
business in the afternoon. In the afternoon, Alexanders
group and Macapagal, with Teddy and Oteng both surnamed
Silongan, traveled to fetch Macapagals brother.
Afterwards, the group returned to Isulan on Macapagals
orders. At Isulan, Macapagal gave additional instructions to
wait until dark allegedly because the funeral arrangements
for his relative were not yet finished. When the group
finally got on their way, Macapagal who was earlier busy
talking over his hand-held radio with someone in the
Maguindanaoan dialect ordered the driver to drive slowly
towards the highway. Oteng and his bodyguards alighted
somewhere long the way. As they neared the highway,
Macapagal ordered the driver to stop. Suddenly, 15 armed
men appeared. Alexander and his 3 companions were
ordered to go out of the vehicle, tied up, and blindfolded.
Macapagal and Teddy were also tied up and blindfolded,
but nothing more was done to them. The 4 were taken to a
mountain hideout. After much haggling twelve million
pesos was demanded from Alexander for his release, They
made Alexander write a letter to his wife to pay the
ransom which was hand-carried by a certain Jafar, alias
Dante, and two of the victims, Tormis and Cinco, who both
later managed to escape. No ransom was obtained so other
persons were sent and one of the victims, Rejuso to
renegotiate with Alexanders wife. No agreement was
likewise reached. Seven days later, Alexander and Rejuso
were transferred to the town proper and was guarded them
by several men. When the kidnappers learned that the
military was looking for Alexander, they returned to the
mountain hideout and stayed there for two weeks.
At one time, Alexander Saldaa was made to stay
at a river hideout where a certain Commander Kugta held
him and sheltered his abductors for at least a week. There,
Alexander saw Macapagal with Manap and other armed
men. These men brought Alexander to different places and
was made to write more letters to his family. All in all
appellant was detained for a total of 6 months. Saldaa
was later released to the military in exchange for a relative
of one of the abductors who was caught delivering a
ransom note to Alexanders family.
HELD: The essence of the crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention as defined and penalized in
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is the actual
deprivation of the victims liberty coupled with proof
beyond reasonable doubt of an intent of the accused to
effect the same. It is thus essential that the following be
established by the prosecution: (1) the offender is a private
individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act
of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the
commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances
enumerated in Article 267 be present. But if the kidnapping
was done for the purpose of extorting ransom, the fourth
element is no longer necessary.
There is no mistaking the clear, overwhelming
evidence that the appellants abducted Alexander Saldaa
and his companions at gunpoint and deprived them of their
freedom. That the appellants took shifts guarding the

96
victims until only Alexander was left to be guarded and in

transferring Alexander from one hideout to another to
prevent him from being rescued by the military establish
that they acted in concert in executing their common
criminal design.
People v. Cortez, 324 SCRA 335 (2000)
FACTS: Mendoza was in her house when accused
Cortez, Callos and Betonio, all armed with bolos, arrived.
They were looking for Lolita's cousin, Esminda, and were
threatening to kill him on sight. Unable to find Santos, they
decided to abduct Lolita to prevent her from reporting the
incident to the police. Accompanied by the other two,
accused Callos pointed his bolo at Lolita's back and dragged
her to the mountain. They brought her to the house of
Torral, an uncle of accused Cortez, where Cortez bound her
hand with a belts and thereafter continued their search for
Santos. Hours later, PO2 Santos and barangay captain
Colarina rescued found Lolita outside the nipa hut of the
Torrals, conversing with Pablo Torral. Lolita told them that
the Torrals did not prevent her from leaving their house.
However, she did not attempt to escape for fear that the
accused would make good their threat to kill her.
Appellants allege failure to establish one of the essential
elements of the crime, i.e., deprivation of the victim's
liberty. They point out that at the time of the rescue,
Lolita was not physically confined inside the house as they
found her standing outside, conversing with Pablo Torral.
They stress that Lolita herself declared that she was not
prevented by the Torrals from leaving the house.
HELD: For the crime of kidnapping to prosper,
the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of his
liberty, in any manner, has to be established by indubitable
proof. However, it is not necessary that the offended party
be kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of
locomotion. In the case at bar, the deprivation of Lolita's
liberty was amply established by evidence. When the
appellants failed to find Lolita's cousin, they forcibly
dragged her to the mountains and kept her in the house of
the Torrals. Cortez even bound her hands with a belt.
Although at the time of the rescue, she was found outside
the house talking to Pablo Torral, she explained that she
did not attempt to leave the premises for fear that the
appellants would make good their threats to kill her should
she do so. Her fear is not baseless as the appellants knew
where she resided and they had earlier announced that
their intention in looking for Lolita's cousin was to kill him
on sight. Certainly, fear has been known to render people
immobile. Indeed, appeals to the fears of an individual,
such as by threats to kill or similar threats, are equivalent
to the use of actual force or violence which is one of the
elements of the crime of kidnapping under Article 267 (3)
of the Revised Penal Code.
People v. Suriaga, 381 SCRA 159 (2002)
FACTS: Edwin Ramos was cleaning the car of his
older brother, Johnny who was taking care of his 2-year old
daughter, Nicole, playing inside the car. Suriaga, a cousin
of the Ramos brothers, arrived. He was accompanied by his
live-in-partner Rosita. Suriaga requested Edwin if he could
drive the car, but the latter declined, saying he did not
have the keys. Meanwhile, Johnny returned to his house
because a visitor arrived. At this instance, Rosita held
Nicole and cajoled her. Rosita asked Edwin if she could
take Nicole with her to buy barbeque. Having been
acquainted with Rosita for a long time and because he
trusted her, Edwin acceded. When Rosita and the child

left, Suriaga joined them. More than an one hour has
passed but the two failed to return with Nicole. Edwin,
Johnny and his wife, Mercedita, then began searching but
they could not find their daughter and Rosita. Nicoles
grandfather then receive a call from Suriaga asking for
ransom in the amount of P100,000.00. Johnny immediately
reported the call to the PACC Task Force. The next day,
Suriaga called Mercedita, introduced himself and asked her
if she and her husband would give the amount to which the
latter responded in the positive.
Suriaga instructed
Mercidita as to the how the money should be delivered to
him with a warning that if she will not deliver the money,
her daughter would be placed in a plastic bag or thrown in
a garbage can. Thereafter, with the cash money, and while
being tailed by PACC agents, Mercida proceeded to deliver
the money to Suriaga. The PACC agents arrested Suriaga
and his companion Isidera after Mercida gave the money to
them. Prior thereto, Nicole was rescued in a shanty where
Rositas sister lived.
HELD: The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the
actual deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled with
indubitable proof of the accuseds intent to effect the
same. And if the person detained is a child, the question
that needs to be addressed is whether there is evidence to
show that in taking the child, there was deprivation of the
childs liberty and that it was the intention of the accused
to deprive the mother of the childs custody.
Undoubtedly, the elements of kidnapping for ransom
have been sufficiently established by the prosecution
considering the following circumstances: 1) appellant, a
private individual, took the young Nicole without personally
seeking permission from her father; 2) appellant took the
girl and brought her to a shanty where Rositas sister lived,
without informing her parents of their whereabouts; 3) he
detained the child and deprived her of her liberty by failing
to return her to her parents overnight and the following
day; and 4) he demanded a ransom of P100,000.00 through
telephone calls and gave instructions where and how it
should be delivered.
People v. Acbangin, 337 SCRA 454 (2000)
FACTS: Jocelyn brought four-year old
Sweet to Nius house without the consent of the childs
father Danilo Acbangin. When Danilo asked Jocelyn about
her daughter who he last saw playing in the latters house,
Jocelyn denied knowing of the child's whereabouts. After 2
days, Jocelyn acompanied Danilo, Sweet's grandfather and
police officers to Niu's house. The latter voluntarily turned
Sweet over to her father and the policemen. Sweet was
well-dressed and smiling. She ran to her father and
embraced him.
HELD: In cases of kidnapping, if the person
detained is a child, the question is whether there was
actual deprivation of the child's liberty, and whether it was
the intention of the accused to deprive the parents of the
custody of the child.
Sweet was deprived of her liberty. True, she was
treated well. However, there is still kidnapping. 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. Given Sweet's tender age,
when Jocelyn left her in Niu's house, at a distant place in
Tondo, Manila, unknown to her, she deprived Sweet of the
freedom to leave the house at will. It is not necessary that
the detention be prolonged.

97
The intention to deprive Sweet's parents of her

custody is indicated by Jocelyn's hesitation for two days to
disclose Sweet's whereabouts and more so by her actual
taking of the child. Jocelyn's motive at this point is not
relevant. It is not an element of the crime.
People v. Pavillare, 329 SCRA 684 (2000)
FACTS: Sukhjinder Singh, an Indian national was on
his way back to his parked motorcycle when three men
blocked his way. Pavillare, who was one of them, accused
Singh of having raped the woman inside a Kia taxi cab
parked nearby. Singh denied the accusation, the three men
nevertheless forced him inside the cab and brought him in
Quezon City. One of the abductors took the key to his
motorcycle and drove it alongside the cab. Singh was
beaten up and P100,000.00 was demanded for his release.
Singh told them that he only had P5,000.00 with him.
Pavillare then forced him to give the phone numbers of his
relatives so they can make their demand from them. Singh
gave the phone number of his cousin Lakhvir Singh and then
Pavillare made the call. The amount of 25,000.00 was
agreed upon. An uncle and his cousin Lakhvir arrived in a
motorcycle and together with the kidnappers they entered
a mini-grocery. Later the kidnappers brought the
complainant to the mini-grocery where he met his
relatives. The ransom money was handed to the appellant.
He counted the money and then, together with his cohorts,
immediately left the scene. Pavillare argues that he should
have been convicted of simple robbery and not kidnapping
with ransom because the evidence proves that the prime
motive of the Pavillare and his companions is to obtain
money and that the complainant was detained only for two
hours:
HELD: The duration of the detention even if only for
a few hours does not alter the nature of the crime
committed. The crime of kidnapping is committed by
depriving the victim of liberty whether he is placed in an
enclosure or simply restrained from going home. As
squarely expressed in Article 267 of the RPC the penalty of
death is imposable where the detention is committed for
the purpose of extorting ransom, and the duration of the
detention is not material.
Ransom
People v. Castro, 385 SCRA 24
FACTS: Saez was informed by his siblings that
Castro called up to say that the latter wanted to speak with
Saez. After taking a quick shower, Saez repaired to
Castros residence. Just as Castro opened the gate for
Saez, Castro pointed and fired his 9 mm. handgun at Saez,
its bullet whizzing by his right ear. Saez was thrown
against the concrete wall of the house. He was then taken
inside the house. Reyes and Jde los Angeles, joined Castro
in mauling Saez. Castro hit Saez with an iron club. At
around nine oclock in the evening, Castro handed over to
him a phone and ordered him to tell his family to raise
twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos. Fifteen minutes later,
Castro gave back the phone to Saez and told him to instruct
the person on the other line to bring the money to a place
near a hospital. About half an hour later, another call was
placed to follow-up the demand. Turning to de los Angeles
and Reyes, Castro instructed the two to go to the drop-off
point. Nobody showed up. After an hour, Saez was
ordered to call again, this time to designate another place
where the money was to be delivered. Castro told Saez to
have his relatives bring the money to the vicinity of the

Aglipay Church in Caridad. Again, no meeting materialized.
Around midnight, Castro, de los Angeles and Reyes left the
house and stayed by the gate conversing with one another.
The victim took the opportunity to flee. He was able to
untie his legs and tackle the stairs towards the second
storey. He jumped out through the window but the noise
he created caught the attention of Castro. The latter fired
his gun, hitting the fleeing victim and planting a bullet in
his buttocks. His plea for help alarmed some barangay
officials who immediately came to his rescue and brought
him to the nearest hospital
HELD: The corpus delicti in the crime of
kidnapping for ransom is the fact that an individual has
been in any manner deprived of his liberty for the purpose
of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.
Whether or not the ransom is actually paid to or received
by the perpetrators is of no moment. In People vs.
Salimbago, the Court stressed:
x x x No specific form of ransom is
required to consummate the felony of
kidnapping for ransom so long as it was
intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for
the victims freedom. In municipal criminal
law, ransom refers to the money, price or
consideration paid or demanded for redemption
of a captured person or persons, a payment
that releases from captivity. Neither actual
demand for nor actual payment of ransom is
necessary for the crime to be committed.
People v. Ejandra, 429 SCRA 364
FACTS: While Ed Henderson, the 9-year old son of
spouses Eddie and Marileen Tan was on his way back to the
house of his tutor in Chinese language to wait for his
father, accused Tampos, armed with a revolver, chased and
overtook the boy. Tampos then ordered the boy to proceed
to a motorcycle parked nearby where appellants Ejandra
and Revilla were waiting. Ejandra covered Ed Henderson's
mouth with his hand, pointed his gun at the boy and
warned the latter not to shout. Thereafter, Tampos ordered
Ed Henderson to board the motorcycle, or else, he would
be shot. Ed was brought to a house where one Huera, and
Calunod was. Ed Henderson was ordered to write down his
father's telephone number, as well as that of their house
and their store. Eddie then received a call through his
home phone, informing him that his son had been
kidnapped. Several calls were made and a reduced ransom
of P548,000 for the safe release of Ed Henderson was
eventually agreed upon. Eddie was then instructed to place
the money in a newspaper and to bring the money to the
parking lot in front of a Church. Eddie did as he was told.
He proceeded to the designated place. When Calunod
approached and called Eddie, the latter handed over the
plastic bag which contained the money. Eddie asked
Calunod how his son was. Calunod told Eddie not to worry
because the latter would bring the boy home. Calunod then
walked to the gate of the church and went home to wait
for his son's return. Ed Henderson returned on board a taxi
and was soon reunited with his waiting family. Ejandra,
Calunod, Tampos and Revilla were convicted of kidnapping
for ransom and were sentenced to suffer the death penalty.
HELD: Since all the foregoing facts indubitably
show that the appellants conspired to kidnap the victim for
ransom, the Court affirmed the conviction of Ejandra,
Calunod, Tampos and Revilla of kidnapping for ransom.

98
To warrant an imposition of the death penalty for

the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for
ransom, the prosecution must prove the following beyond
reasonable doubt: (a) intent on the part of the accused to
deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of
the victim of his liberty; and, (c) motive of the accused,
which is ransom for the victim or other person for the
release of the victim. The purpose of the offender in
extorting ransom is a qualifying circumstance which may be
proven by his words and overt acts before, during and after
the kidnapping and detention of the victim. Neither actual
demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for
the crime to be committed. Ransom, as employed in the
law, is so used in its common or ordinary sense; meaning, a
sum of money or other thing of value, price, or
consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a
kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases
from captivity. It may include benefits not necessarily
pecuniary which may accrue to the kidnapper as a
condition for the victim's release. n this case, the
appellants not only demanded but also received ransom for
the release of the victim. The trial court correctly
sentenced the appellants to death.
2.
3.
4.
Mandatory Imposition of Death

Penalty
People v. Morales, 427 SCRA 765
FACTS: Jefferson Tan was with his siblings, Jessie
Anthony and Joanna Tan, his cousin, Malou and their driver,
Cesar on board the family L-300 van. Along the highway,
the vehicle slowed down to steer clear of a damaged
portion of the road when Malit suddenly poked a gun at
Cesar. Simultaneously, Morales, Esguerra, and Saldaa
entered the van. Esguerra took the driver's seat and the
other two blindfolded the five victims. Jefferson was
eventually sent home to get the 2M ransom which was later
reduced to 1.5M, from his father, Feliciano. Jefferson was
instructed to bring the ransom to a snack center. Feliciano
did not allow his son to bring the ransom and explained to
the kidnappers that Jefferson was in shock and could not
go. When asked about the ransom money, he told the
caller that he could only give P92,000. The caller agreed.
Later, at the place where the kidnappers instructed
Feliciano to go, the latter gave the money and he was
handed the keys to the L-300 van where his children are.
HELD: The elements of the crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention are the following: (a) the
accused is a private individual; (b) the accused kidnaps or
detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his
liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and
(d) in the commission of the offense, any of the four
circumstances mentioned in Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code are present. The imposition of the death
penalty is mandatory if the kidnapping was committed for
the purpose of extorting ransom. In the instant case,
appellants cannot escape the penalty of death, inasmuch as
it was sufficiently alleged and indubitably proven that the
kidnapping had been committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom.
Article 268. Slight illegal detention

Elements:
1.
He kidnaps or detains another, or

in any other manner deprives him of his
liberty.
The act of kidnapping or detention
is illegal;
The crime is committed without the
attendance of any of the circumstances
enumerated in Article 267.
The same penalty for slight
illegal detention shall be incurred by
anyone who shall furnish the place for the
perpetration of the crime. (normally, this is
an accomplice but under this article he is
treated as co-principal)
Privileged
mitigating
circumstance (penalty lower by one
degree) if the offender:
o
Voluntarily
releases
the person so kidnapped or detained
within
three
days
from
the
commencement of the detention;
o
Without
having
attained the purpose intended; and
o
Before the institution
of criminal proceedings against him.
Voluntary release is not a
privileged mitigating circumstance if the
victim is woman, because the detention
would then be punished under Article 267.
Voluntary release is not mitigating under
that article.
Article 269. Unlawful arrest

Elements:
1.
Offender arrests or detains another

person;
2.
3.
The purpose of the offender is to

deliver him to the proper authorities;
The arrest or detention is not
authorized by law or there is no reasonable
ground therefor.
Unlawful arrests by public
officers should be punished under Article
124, if the public officer has the legal
authority to arrest and detain a person, but
the arrest is without legal ground. If the
public officer has no authority to arrest and
detain a person, or if he did not act in his
official capacity, he should be punished for
unlawful arrest under this article. Compare
with art. 267
The motive of the person
arresting is controlling. If his purpose is
to deliver to proper authorities, this
article applies. Absence of this motive
Offender is a private individual;

99
may be shown by the length of time the

victim is detained.
If the purpose of delivering to
proper authorities is not shown, the person
may be liable for other illegal detention
(under 267 or 268, depending on the
circumstances of the case)
Unlawful arrest
The detention is not

authorized by law
Crime is committed by
making an arrest not
authorized by law
Delay of delivery of
detained persons
The detention is for some
legal ground
Crime is committed by
failing to deliver such
persons to the proper
judicial authority within a
certain period of time
Bar Questions
Arbitrary Detention; Elements; Grounds (2006)
1. What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary
detention? Explain each. (2.5.%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The 3 ways of arbitrary detention are:
a) Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without
legal ground committed by any public officer or
employee who, without legal grounds, detains a
person (Art. 124, Revised Penal Code).
b) Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the
proper judicial authorities which is committed by a
public officer or employee who shall detain any
person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver
such person to the proper judicial authorities within
the period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offense
punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
eighteen hours (18), for crimes or offenses
punishable by correctional facilities, or their
equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours for crimes or
offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties,
or their equivalent (Art. 125, Revised Penal Code).
c) Delaying release is committed by any public officer
or employee who delays the release for the period of
time specified therein the performance of any judicial
or executive order for the release of the prisoner, or
unduly delays the service of the notice of such order
to said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition
for
the liberation of such person (Art. 126, Revised Penal
Code).
2. What are the legal grounds for detention?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any
other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement
of the patient in a hospital shall be considered legal
grounds for the detention of any person (Art. 124[2],
Revised Penal Code).
3. When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a
private person considered lawful? Explain. (5%)
1. When the arrest by a peace officer is made
pursuant to a valid warrant.
2. A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
i. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense,
ii. When an offense has in fact just been committed,
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating

that the person to be arrested has committed it, and
iii. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to
another (Sec. 5, Rule 113,1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure).
Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to

return a minor
Elements:
1.
2.
Offender is entrusted with the custody

of a minor person (whether over or under
seven years but less than 21 years of age);
He deliberately fails to restore the said
minor to his parents or guardians.
What is punished is the
deliberate failure of the custodian of the
minor to restore the latter to his parents or
guardians.
When the crime is committed
by the father or mother of the minor, the
penalty is arresto mayor or a fine not
exceeding 300 pesos or both.
Article 270
Offender is entrusted
with the custody of the
minor
Article 267
The offender is not
entrusted with the
custody of the minor
People vs. Ty
A mother left her sick child in a clinic and only came back
to claim the child five years later. Unfortunately, the
doctors had already entrusted the child to a guardian.
HELD:
Two elements must concur in the crime of
kidnapping of a minor: (a) the offender had been entrusted
with the custody of the minor; and (b) the offender
DELIBERATELY fails to restore said minor to his parents or
legal guardian. In the case at bar, it is evident that there
was no deliberate refusal or failure to return the minor as
it was proven that the doctors tried their best to locate the
child, even seeking NBIs assistance along the way.
People vs. Gutierrez (1991)
Lilia Gutierrez was convicted by the RTC of Manila of the
crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The minor was Hazel
Elpedes, her 2 and a half-year-old nephew (yup, Hazels a
guy in this story), whom Gutierrez allegedly sold to the
spouses Felipe for P250 (Lilia claims she did it to spite her
husband, brother of Hazels mom, who had abandoned
her).
HELD: The offense of kidnapping and failure to return a
minor under Art. 270 of the RPC consists of 2 elements:

100
the offender has been entrusted with

the custody of a minor person, and
the offender deliberately fails to
restore said minor to his parents or guardians.
It is clear that Gutierrez admitted the existence of the first

element (she asked her in-laws for permission to take the
boy out).
The second element has likewise been established. In the
first place, Gutierrez's own conduct in leading the boys
father and police to the Felipe residence in Intramuros
indicated her awareness of the probable whereabouts of
the child. The logical conclusion is that she must have been
the person responsible for originally leaving the child with
the Felipe spouses. In the second place, the precise motive
that Gutierrez might have had for bringing Hazel Elpedes to
the Felipe spouses and leaving him with them, apparently
for an indefinite period, is not an indispensable element of
the offense charged. All that was necessary for the
prosecution to prove was that she had deliberately failed
to return the minor to his parents.
People vs. Reyes (1996)
Delia Reyes, maid of the Mohamad spouses, was convicted
of kidnapping one of their daughters, Asnia. After spending
300-grand on a manhunt, Asnia was recovered a couple of
months later. Reyes claims that, while out with Asnia, she
ran into her sister who informed her of their moms death;
Reyes then allegedly had a friend take Asnia home while
she (Reyes) and her sister went to La Union for their moms
wake (basically, shes blaming somebody else).
HELD: Reyes's negligence is wanton and gross as to amount
to a deliberate and willful scheme to take the child away
from her parents. This willfulness is sufficiently established
by the following circumstances: (1) appellant lured Asnia
and her sister into leaving their house; (2) she instructed
the two elder sisters to go home but kept the youngest
with her; (3) she and Asnia could not be located despite
extensive search by the authorities and the widespread
publicity generated through the television, radio and print
media; (4) the child was found two months later and only
after the arrest of appellant; and (5) appellant harbored
ill-feelings against the Mohamads family (she admitted
that, at one point, the Mohamads did not pay her salary for
5 months when she worked for them in 1989).
People vs. Borromeo (2000)
Borromeo alias "Sonny", a bakery helper of Rowena who had
been discharged by her due to negative attitude problems,
kidnapped her 1-year and 7-months old son. The next day,
Sonny demanded a P300,000 ransom. He was convicted of
kidnapping a minor for ransom and was sentenced to death.
HELD: There is no question that the elements of kidnapping
for ransom were sufficiently established: (a) the accused is
a private individual; (b) the accused kidnapped or detained
the victim and deprived him of his liberty; and, (c) the
deprivation of the victim's liberty was illegal. As provided
for in Art. 267 of the RPC as amended, the imposition of
the death penalty is mandatory if the victim is a minor and
also, if the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.
IN CAB, the minority of Kenneth was never disputed. The

minority and the demand for the payment of ransom, both
specifically described in the Information, were clearly
established by the State, free of any scintilla of doubt.
People v. Borromeo (2000)
FACTS: Borromeo alias "Sonny", a bakery helper of
Rowena who had been discharged by her due to negative
attitude problems, kidnapped her 1-year and 7-months old
son. The next day, Sonny demanded a P300,000 ransom. He
was convicted of kidnapping a minor for ransom and was
sentenced to death.
HELD: There is no question that the elements of
kidnapping for ransom were sufficiently established: (a) the
accused is a private individual; (b) the accused kidnapped
or detained the victim and deprived him of his liberty; and,
(c) the deprivation of the victim's liberty was illegal. As
provided for in Art. 267 of the RPC as amended, the
imposition of the death penalty is mandatory if the victim
is a minor and also, if the kidnapping was committed for
the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any
other person.
IN CAB, the minority of Kenneth was never
disputed. The minority and the demand for the payment of
ransom, both specifically described in the Information,
were clearly established by the State, free of any scintilla
of doubt.
People v. Pastrana, 387 SCRA 342
FACTS: Postejo, working as a domestic helper in
Canada, has four children namely, Jenny, Doroteo, Aresola,
and 9-year old Willy. Erma was introduced by her sister to
spouses Frias who informed her that their daughter,
Pastrana can help process Willy's travel documents to
Canada. Erma agreed to hand the processing of her son's
papers. In one of the telephone conversations of Erma and
Pastrana, the latter informed Erma that Willy was suffering
from acute bronchitis. Erna sent money for the medical
treatment of his son. Pastrana then fetched Willy and
Aresola from their residence in Caloocan and brought them
to her apartment. Thought she never brought Willy to a
hospital for treatment, Pastrana kept on demanding money
from Erma which include the amount of P60,000.00 for the
installation of a water purifier in her apartment allegedly
for Willy's safety, and for additional money for her job
application in Singapore. Erna, however, refused to
transmit the amounts demanded by Pastrana and ordered
the return of Willy to their residence in Caloocan. Pastrana
deliberately failed to return Willy for 7 days until the latter
disappeared while allegedly playing in front of Pastranas
apartment.
HELD: Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code has two
essential elements, namely: (1) the offender is entrusted
with the custody of a minor person; and (2) the offender
deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or
guardians. What is actually being punished is not the
kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure of
the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his
parents or guardians. The word deliberate as used in Article
270 must imply something more than mere negligence it
must be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or
intentionally and maliciously wrong. In the case at bar,
there is no question that accused-appellant was entrusted
with the custody of 9-year old Willy. Erma and her children

101
trusted accused-appellant that they sent her money for the

processing of Willy's travel documents, and more
importantly, they allowed Willy to stay in her apartment.
As to the second element, It was this deliberate failure of
accused-appellant to return custody of Willy to his relatives
that gave rise to her culpability under Article 270 of the
Revised Penal Code. The disappearance of Willy and
accused-appellant's inability to return him to Caloocan by
reason thereof has no bearing on the crime charged as it
was her willful disobedience to Erma's order that
consummated the crime.
People v. Bernardo, 378 SCRA 708
FACTS: While Rosita was undergoing
medical check up inside a hospital, her two daughters
waited at the lobby. Roselle was seating on a bench with
her 15-day old sister on her lap. Bernardo befriended
Roselle and later gave her P3.00 and asked her to buy ice
water. Thereafter, Bernardo took the baby from Roselle.
Roselle was not able to find ice water for sale and on her
way back to the hospital, she saw Bernardo running away
with her baby sister. Roselle pulled and pulled Bernardo's
skirt to prevent the latter from getting away. Torres saw
Bernardo carrying a child and struggling with Roselle.
Roselle begged Torres to help her because her mother was
at the hospital and the accused was getting her baby sister.
Torres took the baby from the Bernardo and entrusted the
baby to his wife. Then he led Bernardo and Roselle to the
hospital to look for Rosita who confirmed that she was the
mother of the baby. The RTC convicted Bernardo of the
crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under
Article 270 of the RPC.
HELD: The essential element of the crime of
kidnapping and failure to return a minor is that the
offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor, but
what is actually being punished is not the kidnapping of the
minor but rather the deliberate failure of the custodian of
the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.
Indeed, the word deliberate as used in Article 270 of the
Revised Penal Code must imply something more than mere
negligence it must be premeditated, headstrong,
foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong.
When Roselle entrusted Roselyn to appellant before setting
out on an errand for appellant to look for ice water, the
first element was accomplished and when appellant
refused to return the baby to Roselle despite her
continuous pleas, the crime was effectively accomplished.
In fine, we agree with the trial court's finding that
appellant is guilty of the crime of kidnapping and failure to
return a minor.
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention
as follows: in coercion, the basis of criminal liability is
the employment of violence or serious intimidation
approximating violence, without authority of law, to
prevent a person from doing something not
prohibited by law or to compel him to do something
against his will, whether it be right or wrong; while in
Illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual
restraint or locking up of a person, thereby depriving
him of his liberty without authority of law. If there
was no intent to lock up or detain the offended party
unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not
committed.
Kidnapping (2002)
A and B were legally separated. Their child C, a
minor, was placed in the custody of A the mother,
subject to monthly visitations by B, his father. On one
occasion, when B had C in his company, B decided
not to return C to his mother. Instead, B took C with
him to the United States where he intended for them
to reside permanently. What crime, if any, did B
commit? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to
return a minor under Article 271, in relation to Article
270, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Article
271 expressly penalizes any parent who shall take
from and deliberately fail to restore his or her minor
child to the parent or guardian to whom custody of
the minor has been placed. Since the custody of C,
the minor, has been given to the mother and B has
only the right of monthly visitation, the latter's act of
taking C to the United Slates, to reside there
permanently, constitutes a violation of said
provisions of law.
Kidnapping (2006)
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles
factory of Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due to his
arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they
seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario.
They told Mario they will only teach Luke a lesson in
Christian humility. Mario drove them to a fishpond in
Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie,
the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in
their shack because he was running from the NBI.
The trio then left in Mario's car for Manila where they
called up Luke's family and threatened them to kill
Luke unless they give a ransom within 24 hours.
Unknown to them, because of a leak, the kidnapping
was announced over the radio and TV. Emil and Louie
heard the broadcast and panicked, especially when
the announcer stated that there is a shoot-to-kill
order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to
the seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they smashed
his head with a shovel and buried him in the sand.
However, they were seen by a barangay kagawad
who arrested them and brought them to the police
station. Upon interrogation, they confessed and
pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those
responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4 were
arrested and charged. What crime or crimes did the 6
suspects commit? (5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with
homicide. The original intention was to demand
ransom from the family with the threat of killing. As a
consequence of the kidnapping, however, Luke was
killed. Thus, the victim was deprived of his freedom
and the subsequent killing, though committed by
another person, was a consequence of the detention.
Hence, this properly qualified the crime as the
special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with
homicide (People v. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554,
October 1, 2003; Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the
victim and buried the latter in the sand committed
murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior
strength. They are not liable for kidnapping because
they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the
intention to detain Luke whom they were informed
was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal
Code).

102
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the

criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy.
His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in
Christian humility" does not constitute a crime.
Alternative Answer:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with
ransom. After kidnapping Luke, they demanded
ransom with the threat of killing him. However, the
killing of Luke is separate from the kidnapping having
been committed by other persons, who had nothing
to do with the kidnapping, and who will be liable for a
different crime (Penultimate par. of Art. 267, Revised
Penal Code).
b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the
victim and buried the latter in the sand committed
murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior
strength. They are not liable for kidnapping because
they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the
intention to detain Luke whom they were informed
was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal
Code).
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the
criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy.
His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in
Christian humility" does not constitute a crime.
Kidnapping w/ Homicide (2005)
Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the
one-week old son of the spouses Martin and Pops
Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old
mother was seriously ill, she asked Martin for a cash
advance of P1,000.00 but Martin refused. One
morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martins son with
stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with
masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in
the afternoon, she demanded P5,000.00 as ransom
for the release of his son. Martin did not pay the
ransom. Subsequently, Paz disappeared. After a
couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the attic
with his child already dead. According to the autopsy
report, the child died of asphyxiation barely three
minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or
crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Paz committed the composite crime of kidnapping
with homicide under Art. 267, RFC as amended by
R.A. No. 7659. Under the law, any person who shall
detain another or in any manner deprive him of
liberty and the victim dies as a consequence is liable
for kidnapping with homicide and shall be penalized
with the maximum penalty. In this case,
notwithstanding the fact that the one-week old child
was merely kept in the attic of his house, gagged
with stockings and placed in a box sealed with tape,
the deprivation of liberty and the intention to kill
becomes apparent. Though it may appear that the
means employed by Paz was attended by treachery
(killing of an infant), nevertheless, a separate charge
of murder will not be proper in view of the
amendment. Here, the term "homicide" is used in its
generic sense and covers all forms of killing whether
in the nature of murder or otherwise. It is of no
moment that the evidence shows the death of the
child took place three minutes after the box was
sealed and the demand for the ransom took place in
the afternoon. The intention is controlling here, that
is, ransom was demanded.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Murder qualified by treachery because the victim was
only one week old. The offense was attended with
the aggravating circumstance of lack of respect due

to the age of the victim, cruelty and abuse of
confidence. In People v. Lora (G.R. No, L-49430,
March 30, 1982), the Court found that a child
subjected to similar treatment as the infant in this
case would have died instantly, negating any intent
to kidnap or detain when ransom was sought.
Demand for ransom did not convert the offense into
kidnapping with murder because the demand was
merely a scheme by the offender (Paz) to conceal the
body of her victim.
Kidnapping; Effects; Voluntary Release (2004)
DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor.
On the second day, DAN released CHU even before
any criminal information was filed against him. At the
trial of his case, DAN raised the defense that he did
not incur any criminal liability since he released the
child before the lapse of the 3-day period and before
criminal proceedings for kidnapping were instituted.
Will DAN's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release
by the offender of the offended party in kidnapping is
not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and
immaterial in this case because the victim being a
minor, the crime committed is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised
Penal Code, to which such circumstance does not
apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in
the crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268
(Asistio v. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673 [1964])
Kidnapping; Illegal Detention; Minority (2006)
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich
classmate, was so enamored with her that he
persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in
love with another man, rejected him. This angered
Job, Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and
her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his
minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them
inside a white van. They brought them to an
abandoned warehouse where they forced them to
dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill
in a nearby barangay where they took turns raping
them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to
push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn
ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and pushed
her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was
never seen again.
1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job
and Nonoy? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 1) kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with homicide and rape for the
subsequent death of Dang, and 2) kidnapping with
rape against her sister, Lyn. The victims, who were
kidnapped and detained, were subsequently raped
and killed (as regards Dang) in the course of their
detention. The composite crime is committed
regardless of whether the subsequent crimes were
purposely sought or merely an afterthought (People
v. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-5, Februarys, 2004).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 2 counts of the complex
crime of forcible abduction with rape (Art. 342,
Revised Penal Code) and the separate offense of
murder against Dang. The crime committed is
abduction because there was lewd design when they
took the victims away and subsequently raped them.
The killing thereafter, constitutes the separate

103
offense of murder qualified by treachery.

2. What penalties should be imposed on them?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the death penalty has already been prohibited,
reclusion perpetua is the appropriate penalty (RA.
9346). In the case of the minor Nonoy, his penalty
shall be one degree lower (Art. 68, Revised Penal
Code).
3. Will Nonoy's minority exculpate him? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act,
which retroacts to the date that the crime was
committed, Nonoy will be exculpated if he was 15
years old or below. However, if he was above 15
years old but below 18 years of age, he will be liable
if he acted with discernment. As the problem shows
that Nonoy acted with discernment, he will be
entitled to a suspension of sentence.(NOTABENE:
R.A. 9344 is outside the coverage of the
examination)
4. Is the non-recovery of Lyn's body material to
the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the
criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because the
corpus delicti of the crime which is kidnapping with
rape of Lyn has been duly proven.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the
criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because the
corpus delicti of the crime which is forcible abduction
with rape of Lyn has been duly proven.
Kidnapping; Proposal to Kidnap (1996)
Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration
of money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so that he
may succeed to raping her and eventually making
her accede to marry him. Vicente asked for more
money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered
because Edgardo did not put up the money he
required, he reported Edgardo to the police. May
Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted
kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap or
restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced.
At most, what Edgardo has done in the premises was
a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only
a preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt
to commit a felony commences with the commission
of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to commit
kidnapping is not a crime.
Kidnapping; Serious Illegal Detention (1997)
A and B conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and
detained him. The duo then called up C's wife
informing her that they had her husband and would
release him only if she paid a ransom in the amount
of P10,000,000 and that, if she were to fail, they
would kill him. The next day, C, who had just
recovered from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he
might die if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B
released C during the early morning of the third day
of detention. Charged with kidnapping and serious
illegal detention provided in Article 267, RPC, A and B
filed a petition for bail. They contended that since
they had voluntarily released C within three days
from commencement of the detention, without
having been paid any amount of the ransom
demanded and before the institution of criminal

proceedings against them, the crime committed was
only slight illegal detention prescribed in Article 268,
RPC. After hearing, the trial court found the evidence
of guilt to be strong and therefore denied the petition
for bail. On appeal, the only issue was: Was the crime
committed kidnapping and serious detention or slight
Illegal detention? Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention because they made a
demand for ransom and threatened to kill C if the
latter's wife did not pay the same. Without the
demand for ransom, the crime could have been slight
illegal detention only. The contention of A and B that
they had voluntary released C within three days from
the commencement of the detention is immaterial as
they are charged with a crime where the penalty
prescribed is death (Asistio vs. San Diego.
10SCRA673). They were properly denied bail because
the trial court found that the evidence of guilt in the
information for kidnapping and serious Illegal
detention is strong.
Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon

his home
Elements:
1.
2.
A minor (whether over or under seven

years of age) is living in the home of his
parents or guardians or the person
entrusted with his custody;
Offender induces said minor to
abandon such home.
The inducement must be
actual, committed with criminal intent, and
determined by a will to cause damage.
It is not necessary that the
minor actually abandons his home, as long
as there is inducement.
The minor should not leave his
home of his own free will.
Father or mother may commit
this crime (as well as Article 270), if the
parents are living separately and custody
has been given to one of them.
Article 272. Slavery

Elements:
1.
2.
Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or

detains a human being;
enslave such human being.
If the purpose of the offender is
to assign the offended party to some
immoral traffic (prostitution), the penalty is
higher.

104
Differentiated from kidnapping:

If the purpose is to enslave the victim, the
crime is slavery; otherwise the crime is
kidnapping or illegal detention.
Elements:
a.
b.
Article 273. Exploitation of child labor
c.
Elements:
d.
1.
2.
3.
Offender retains a minor in his

services;
It is against the will of the minor;
It is under the pretext of
reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by
an
ascendant,
guardian
or
person
entrusted with the custody of such minor.
The
existence
of
an
indebtedness
constitutes
no
legal
justification for holding a person and
depriving him of his freedom to live where
he wills.
Article 274.
Services rendered under
compulsion in payment of debt
2.
3.
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
Offender compels a debtor to work for

him, either as household servant or farm
laborer;
It is against the debtors will;
The purpose is to require or enforce the
payment of a debt.
Service under
compulsion
Does not distinguish
whether the victim is a
minor or not
The debtor himself is the
one compelled to work
for the offender
Limited to household
work or farm labor
Exploitation of child
labor
Victim must be a minor
The minor is compelled
to render services for the
supposed debt of his
parent or guardian
Service is not limited
Article 275. Abandonment of persons in

danger and abandonment of ones own
victim
Acts punishable:
1.
Failing to render assistance to any

person whom the offender finds in an
uninhabited place wounded or in danger of
dying when he can render such assistance
without detriment to himself, unless such
omission shall constitute a more serious
offense.
The place is not inhabited;

Accused found there a person
wounded or in danger of dying;
Accused can render assistance
without detriment to himself;
Accused
fails
to
render
assistance.
Failing to help or render assistance to

another
whom
the
offender
has
accidentally wounded or injured;
By failing to deliver a child, under
seven years of age, whom the offender has
found abandoned, to the authorities or to
his family, or by failing to take him to a
safe place.
If
a
person
intentionally
wounds another and leaves him in an
uninhabited place, he shall not be liable
under this article because be did not FIND
him wounded or in danger of dying.
It is immaterial that the
offender did not know that the child is
under seven years.
The child under seven must be
found by the accused in an unsafe place.
Lamera vs. CA
An owner-type jeep driven by Lamera hit and bumped a

tricycle, damaging the said tricycle and injuring the driver
and passenger in the process. Two separate informations
were filed, one for reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property and multiple physical injuries and
another one for abandonment of ones victim.
HELD: The rule on double jeopardy cannot be applied in
this case because the two informations were for separate
offenses the first falls under quasi-offenses while the
second is a crime against security.
Article 276. Abandoning a minor

Elements:
1.
2.
Offender has the custody of a child;

The child is under seven years of
age;
3.
4.
He abandons such child;

He has no intent to kill the child
when the latter is abandoned.
Circumstances qualifying the offense:

1.
When the death of the minor resulted

from such abandonment; or

105
2.
If the life of the minor was in danger

because of the abandonment.
When there is intent to kill, this

article does not apply. The purpose in
abandoning the minor must be to avoid the
obligation of taking care of said minor.
The ruling that intent to kill is
presumed from the death of the victim is
applicable only to crimes against persons,
and not to crimes against security,
particularly the crime in this article.
A permanent, conscious and
deliberate abandonment is required in this
article. There must be an interruption of
the care and protection the minor needs by
reason of his age.
Parents guilty of abandonment
shall be deprived of their parental
authority.
c.
Article 276
The custody of the
offender is stated in
general
The minor is under 7
years of age
Minor is abandoned in
such as way as to
deprive him of the care
and protection that his
tender years need
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by

the person entrusted with his custody;
indifference of parents
Acts punishable:
1.
Delivering a minor to a public

institution or other persons without the
consent of the one who entrusted such
minor to the care of the offender or, in the
absence of that one, without the consent of
the proper authorities;
1.
2.
Neglecting his (offenders) children by

not giving them the education which their
station in life requires and financial
condition permits.
4.
c.
2.
3.
Elements:
a.
b.
Offender is a parent;
He neglects his children by not giving
them education;
Obligation to educate children

terminates, if the mother and children
refuse without good reason to live with the
accused.
Failure to give education must
be due to deliberate desire to evade such
obligation.
If the parents cannot give
education because they had no means to
do so, then they will not be liable under
this article.
Acts punishable:
Offender has charge of the

rearing or education of a minor;
He delivers said minor to a
public institution or other persons;
The one who entrusted such
child to the offender has not consented
to such act; or if the one who entrusted
such child to the offender is absent, the
proper authorities have not consented
to it.
b.
Article 277
The custody of the
offender is specific, that
is, the custody for the
rearing or education of
the minor
The minor is under 21
years of age
The minor is delivered to
a public institution or
other person
Article 278. Exploitation of minors
Elements:
a.
His station in life requires such

education and his financial condition
permits it.
5.
Causing any boy or girl under 16 years

of age to perform any dangerous feat of
balancing, physical strength or contortion,
the offender being any person;
Employing children under 16 years of
age who are not the children or
descendants of the offender in exhibitions
of acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, or
wild-animal tamer, the offender being an
acrobat, etc., or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling;
Employing any descendant under 12
years of age in dangerous exhibitions
enumerated
in
the
next
preceding
paragraph, the offender being engaged in
any of the said callings;
Delivering a child under 16 years of
age gratuitously to any person following
any of the callings enumerated in
paragraph 2, or to any habitual vagrant or
beggar, the offender being an ascendant,
guardian, teacher or person entrusted in
any capacity with the care of such child;
and
Inducing any child under 16 years of
age to abandon the home of its
ascendants,
guardians,
curators
or
teachers to follow any person engaged in
106
any of the callings mentioned in paragraph

2 or to accompany any habitual vagrant or
beggar, the offender being any person.
Exploitation of minors
(par. 5)
Purpose of inducing
minor is to abandon
home is to follow any
person engaged in any of
the callings of being an
acrobat, gymnast, etc.
Minor under 16 years of
age
Inducing a minor to
abandon his home
No such purpose
Minor under 21 years of

age
If the delivery of the child to

any person following any of the callings
enumerated, is made in consideration of
any price, compensation or promise, the
penalty is higher.
The offender shall be deprived
of parental authority or guardianship.
Exploitation of minors refers to
acts endangering the life or safety of the
minor.
R.A. 7610
Special Protection of Children against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act
A. CHILD PROSTITUTION
Who are children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse?
Children, whether male or female, who for money,
profit, or any other consideration or due to the
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate
or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children
exploited in prostitution and other sexual
abuse.
Who are punishable?
1. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
induce child prostitution, which include, but are not
limited to, the following:
a. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
b. Inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
c. Taking
advantage
of
influence
or
relationship to procure a child as prostitute;
d. Threatening or using violence towards a
child to engage him as a prostitute; or
e. Giving monetary consideration, goods or
other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent
to engage such child in prostitution.
2. Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual
abuse;
If the victim is under 12, the perpetrators

shall be prosecuted for rape and or
lascivious conduct under the RPC as the
case may be
However, the penalty for lascivious conduct
when the victim is under twelve (12) years
of age shall be higher (reclusion temporal in
its medium period)
3. Those who derive profit or advantage

therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the
establishment where the prostitution takes place, or
of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of
entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or
which engages in prostitution in addition to the
activity for which the license has been issued to said
establishment.
When
is there attempt
prostitution?
to
commit
child
A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed

for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon
the principals of an attempt to commit the crime of
child prostitution, committed as follows:
1. Attempt of (1) above When any person who, not
being a relative of a child, is found alone with the
said child inside the room or cubicle of a house, an
inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other
similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other
hidden or secluded area under circumstances which
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the
child is about to be exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse; or
2. Attempt of (2) above When any person is
receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or
bath, massage clinic, health club and other similar
establishments.
B. CHILD TRAFFICKING
What is child trafficking?
Child trafficking is committed by a person trading
and dealing with children including, but not limited
to, the act of buying and selling of a child for
money, or for any other consideration, or barter.
When
is there attempt
trafficking?
to
commit
child
(An attempt is punishable by a penalty two degrees

lower than the penalty for the consummated offense)
There is an attempt to commit child trafficking:
1. When a child travels alone to a foreign country
without valid reason therefor and without clearance
issued by the Department of Social Welfare and
Development or written permit or justification from
the child's parents or legal guardian;
2. When a person, agency, establishment or childcaring institution recruits women or couples to bear
a children for the purpose of child trafficking;

107
3. When doctor, hospital or clinic official or

employee, nurse, midwife, local civil registrar or any
other person simulates birth for the purpose of
child trafficking;
4. When a person engages in the act of finding
children among low-income families, hospitals,
clinics, nurseries, day-care centers, or other childduring institutions who can be offered for the
purpose of child trafficking.
C.
OBSCENE
SHOWS
PUBLICATIONS
AND
INDECENT
Any person who shall violate any of the provision of

the Act with respect to working children (conditions
for the employment of children under 15, prohibitions
on the employment of children for certain
advertisements etc.)
F. CHILDREN OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES
Who are punishable?
Any person who discriminates against children of
indigenous cultural communities
Who are punishable?
COMMON PENAL PROVISIONS
Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade,

induce or coerce a child to perform in obscene
exhibitions and indecent shows, whether live or in
video, or model in obscene publications or
pornographic materials or to sell or distribute the
said materials.
1. The penalty provided under this Act shall be

imposed in its maximum period if the offender has
been previously convicted under this Act;
D. OTHER PERSONS PUNISHABLE UNDER THE

ACT
1. Any person who shall commit any other acts of
child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be
responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the
child's development including those covered by
Article 59 of PD 603 (criminal liability of parents due
to abandonment, neglect etc.), but not covered by
the RPC;
2. Any person who shall keep or have in his
company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who
is ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or
private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque,
cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor,
beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places
UNLESS s/he is related to the minor within the fourth
degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond
recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts
in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
3. Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a
minor to any one prohibited by this Act to keep or
have in his company a minor as provided in the
preceding paragraph;
4. Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with
the operation of any public or private place of
accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink
or otherwise, including residential places, who
allows any person to take along with him to such
place or places any minor herein described;
5. Any person who shall use, coerce, force or
intimidate a street child or any other child to;
Beg or use begging as a means of living;
Act as conduit or middlemen in drug
trafficking or pushing;
Conduct any illegal activities
E. WORKING CHILDREN
Who are punishable?
2. When the offender is a corporation, partnership or

association, the officer or employee thereof who is
responsible for the violation of this Act shall suffer
the penalty imposed in its maximum period;
3. The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its
maximum period when the perpetrator is an
ascendant, parent guardian, stepparent or collateral
relative within the second degree of consanguinity or
affinity, or a manager or owner of an establishment
which has no license to operate or its license has
expired or has been revoked;
4. When the offender is a foreigner, he shall be
deported immediately after service of sentence and
forever barred from entry to the country;
5. The penalty provided for in this Act shall be
imposed in its maximum period if the offender is a
public officer or employee, together with the penalty
of disqualification or suspension depending on the
penalty imposed;
6. A fine to be determined by the court shall be
imposed and administered as a cash fund by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development and
disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim,
or any immediate member of his family if the latter is
the perpetrator of the offense.
People v. Delantar (2007)

Appellants violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of R.A. No. 7610 is as
clear as day. The provision penalizes anyone who engages
in or promotes, facilitates or induces child prostitution
either by: (1) acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
or (2) inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements
or other similar means; or (3) by taking advantage of
influence or relationship to procure a child as a
prostitute; or (4) threatening or using violence towards
a child to engage him as a prostitute; or (5) giving
monetary consideration, goods or other pecuniary
benefits to the child with the intent to engage such
child in prostitution.

108
The purpose of the law is to provide special protection to

children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development. A child exploited in
prostitution may seem to consent to what is being done
to her or him and may appear not to complain. However,
we have held that a child who is a person below eighteen
years of age or those unable to fully take care of
themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of their age
or mental disability or condition is incapable of giving
rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
In fact, the absence of free consent is conclusively
presumed when the woman is below the age of twelve
Navarrete v. People (2007)
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA
7610 that must be proven in addition to the
elements of acts of lasciviousness are as follows:
entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against

the latter's will, retain him in his service (Art. 273,
Revised Penal Code). He can also be liable as an
employer for the employment of a minor below 15
yrs. old, under Sec. 12, Art. 8 of RA. 7610.
2. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a
housemaid in Mang Juan's household to pay her loan,
did he commit a crime? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of involuntary
servitude for rendering services under compulsion
and payment of debts. This is committed by any
person who, in order to require or enforce the
payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work
for him, against his will, as household servant or farm
laborer (Art. 274, Revised Penal Code)
Article 279. Additional penalties for other

offenses
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or

lascivious conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of
age.
Lascivious conduct is defined under Section 2 (h) of the
rules and regulations of RA 7610 as:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or
through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or
the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
whether of the same or opposite sex, with
an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire
of
any
person,
bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the
genitals or pubic area of a person.
Bar Questions
RA 7610 Child Exploitation (2006)
Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from
Junior, her eldest son, asking for P2,000.00 to
complete his semestral tuition fees preparatory to his
final exams in Commerce. Distressed and disturbed,
she borrowed
money from her compadre Mang Juan with the
assurance to pay him within 2 months. Two months
lapsed but Aling Maria failed to settle her obligation.
Mang Juan told Aling Maria that she does not have to
pay the loan if she will allow her youngest 10-year
old daughter Annie to work as a housemaid in his
house for 2 months at Pl,000.00 a month. Despite
Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan insisted and
brought Annie to his house to work as a maid. 1. Was
a crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought
Annie to his house as maid for the purpose of
repaying her mother's loan? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation
of
child labor which is committed by any persons who
under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt
incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person
The imposition of the penalties

prescribed in the preceding articles shall
not prevent the imposition upon the same
person of the penalty provided for any
other felonies defined and punished by the
RPC.
Article 280.
dwelling
Qualified
trespass
to
Elements:
1. Offender is a private person;
2. He enters the dwelling of another;
3. Such entrance is against the latters will.
Cases to which the provisions of this article is
not applicable:
1.
2.
3.
When the purpose of the entrance is to

prevent serious harm to himself, the
occupant or third persons;
When the purpose of the offender in
entering is to render some service to
humanity or justice;
Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns,
inns and other public houses while they are
open.
Marzalado v. People, 441 SCRA 595 (2004)
FACTS: The petitioner, Marzalado, argues that the

Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in sustaining
the lower court, since in the proceedings below, there was
a grave misapprehension of facts by both the MeTC and RTC
in finding that he committed trespass to dwelling despite
the glaring proof that his entry was justifiable under
paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code to
prevent an imminent danger to property. He stresses that
while he did enter the unit, he did so with the aid of
barangay officers and for the sole purpose of turning off
the faucet that was causing the flooding of the unit.
HELD: In the prosecution for trespass, the
material fact or circumstance to be considered is the

109
occurrence of the trespass. The gravamen of the crime is

violation of possession or the fact of having caused injury
to the right of the possession.
As certified by Barangay Lupon Secretary Ragaya,
the unit rented by Albano was "forcibly opened by the
owner (Marzalado) because of the strong water pressure
coming out of the faucet. . . ." As Albano herself admitted,
she and her children already left the unit when the
electricity supply was cut off in the month of September.
Hence, nobody was left to attend to the unit, except
during some nights when Albano's maid slept in the unit.
Clearly, Marzalado, acted for the justified purpose of
avoiding further flooding and damage to his mother's
property caused by the open faucet. No criminal intent
could be clearly imputed to petitioner for the remedial
action he had taken. There was an exigency that had to be
addressed to avoid damage to the leased unit. There is
nothing culpable concerning Marzalados, judgment call to
enter the unit and turn off the faucet instead of closing the
inlet valve as suggested by the OSG.
Purpose of the law:

to protect and
preserve the privacy of ones dwelling
If the offender is a public officer or
employee, the entrance into the dwelling
against the will of the occupant is violation
of domicile.
Dwelling place devoted for rest and
comfort, as distinguished from places
devoted to business, office etc.
Dwelling includes a room when occupied by
another person (example:
room at a
boarding house)
Against the will should be against the
presumed or express prohibition of the
occupant, not mere lack of consent. There
must be opposition on the part of the
owner of the house to the entry of the
accused.
However, presumed or implied prohibition
is sufficient (e.g. entrance during the late
hour of the night)
Prohibition must be existent prior to or at
the time of entrance.
QUALIFIED TRESPASS: If the offense is
committed by means of violence or
intimidation, the penalty is higher.
Violence may be against persons or
property, but there are conflicting views as
to this statement.
The violence or intimidation may take place
immediately after the entrance.
Proof of express prohibition to enter is not
necessary when violence or intimidation is
employed by the offender.
If there is no overt act of the crime
intended to be committed, the crime is
only trespass to dwelling.
Article 281. Other forms of trespass
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Offender enters the closed premises or

the fenced estate of another;
The entrance is made while either of
them is uninhabited;
The prohibition to enter is manifest;
The trespasser has not secured the
permission of the owner or the caretaker
thereof.
Premises signifies a distinct
and definite locality. This may include a
room, shop, building or definite area.
Trespass to dwelling
The offender is a private
person
The offender enters a
dwelling house
The place entered is
inhabited
The act constituting the
crime is entering against
the will of the owner
Prohibition to enter is
express or implied
Other forms of
trespass
The offender is any
person
The offender enters a
closed premises or a
fenced estate
The place entered is
uninhabited
The act constituting the
crime is entering without
securing the permission
of the owner or caretaker
Prohibition to enter must
be manifest
Bar Questions
Trespass to Dwelling; Private Persons (2006)
Under what situations may a private person enter
any dwelling, residence, or other establishments
without being liable for trespass to dwelling? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Trespass to dwelling is not applicable to any person
who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of:
a) Preventing some serious harm to himself, its
occupants, or a third person; and b) Rendering
service to humanity or justice; Any person who shall
enter cafes, taverns, inns, and other public houses,
while the same are open will likewise not be liable
(Art. 280, Revised Penal Code).
Tresspass to Dwelling; Rule of Absorption
(1994)
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way
inside the house of Mamerto. Jay. Mamerto's son, saw
Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and
stabbed Jay on his abdomen. Mamerto heard the
commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who
was about to escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay
suffered Injuries which, were it not for the timely
medical attendance, would have caused his death.
Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for
25 days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling,
frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less
serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not
be complexed with frustrated homicide because
when the trespass is committed as a means to
commit a more serious offense, trespass to dwelling
is absorbed by the greater crime, and the former

110
constitutes an aggravating circumstance of dwelling

(People vs. Abedoza, 53 Phil.788). Dante committed
frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay.... Dante is
guilty of less serious physical injuries for the wounds
sustained by Mamerto...
Article 282. Grave threats

Acts punishable:
1.
Threatening another with the infliction

upon his person, honor or property or that
of this family of any wrong amounting to a
crime and demanding money or imposing
any other condition, even though not
unlawful, and the offender attained his
purpose;
Elements:
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
3.
The
offender
threatens another person with the
infliction upon the latters person,
honor or property, or upon that of the
latters family, of any wrong;
Such wrong amounts
to a crime;
There is a demand
for money or that any other condition
is imposed, even though not unlawful;
The offender attains
his purpose.
Making such threat without the

offender attaining his purpose;
Threatening another with the infliction
upon his person, honor or property or that
of his family of any wrong amounting to a
crime, the threat not being subject to a
condition.
The essence of the crime of
threats is intimidation; i.e. the promise of
some future harm or injury.
Not necessary that the wrong
threatened to be inflicted must amount to
any of the crimes against persons, honor or
property.
Law requires that the wrong
must be UPON the person, honor or
property.
As the crime consists in
threatening another with some future
harm, it is not necessary that the offended
party was present at the time the threats
were made. It is sufficient that the threats,
came to the knowledge of the offended
party.
The crime of grave threats is
consummated as soon as the threats come
to the knowledge of the person threatened.
Threats made in connection

with the commission of other crimes are
absorbed by the latter.
The offender in grave threats
does not demand the delivery on the spot
of the money or other personal property
demanded by him. When threats are made
and money is taken on the spot, the crime
may be robbery with intimidation.
The penalties for the first two
types of grave threats depend upon the
penalties for the crimes threatened to be
committed.
One degree lower if the
purpose is attained, and two degrees lower
if the purpose is not attained.
If the threat is not subject to a
condition, the penalty is fixed at arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
In the first two types, if the
threat is made in writing or thorough a
middleman, the penalty is to be imposed in
its maximum period.
The third type of grave threats
must be serious and deliberate; the
offender must persist in the idea involved
in his threats. The threat should not be
made in the heat of anger, because such is
punished under Article 285.
If the condition is not proved, it
is grave threats of the third type.
People vs. Timbol
The accused made several advances towards the offended

party. He threatened to kill the womans husband if she
did not accede to his advances. He was convicted of acts
of lasciviousness and grave threats.
HELD: The accused should not be convicted of grave
threats because such threats formed part of the
intimidation that he employed to succeed in his lewd
designs.
Reyes vs. People
A disgruntled employee staged a demonstration in front of
the house of the guy who dismissed him from work.
Phrases of this nature were spoken out loud: Agustin,
putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin, lumabas
ka, papatayin kita!
HELD: All the elements of the crime of grave threats as
defined in Article 282 paragraph 2 are present: (1) the
offender threatened another person with the infliction
upon his person of a wrong; (2) the wrong amounted to a
crime and (3) the threat was not subject to a condition.
Article 283. Light threats

Elements:

111
1.
2.
3.
4.
Offender makes a threat to commit

a wrong;
The wrong does not constitute a
crime;
There is a demand for money or
that other condition is imposed, even
though not unlawful;
Offender has attained his purpose
or, that he has not attained his purpose.
Light threats are committed in
the same manner as grave threats, except
that the act threatened to be committed
should not be a crime.
Blackmailing may be punished
under this article.
Article 284. Bond for good behavior

In what cases may a person be required to give
bail not to molest another?
1.
2.
When he
Article 282.
When he
Article 283.
threatens
another
under
threatens
another
under
Bond for good

behavior
Applicable only to grave
threats and light threats
If offender fails to give
bail, he shall be
sentenced to destierro
NOT a distinct penalty
Other light threats

Grave threats
(second type)
(third type)
Harm threatened to be committed is a crime
Threat is not deliberate
Threat is deliberate
(made in the heat of
anger)
Other light threats
Light threats
(third type)
Harm threatened to be committed is not a crime
There is NO demand for
There is demand for
money, or other
money, or other
condition imposed
condition imposed
Article 286. Grave coercions

Acts punishable:
1.
Bond to keep the

peace
Not made applicable to
any particular case
If the offender fails to
give bond, he shall be
detained for a period not
exceeding 6 months (if
prosecuted for grave/less
grave felony) or not
exceeding 30 days (light
felony)
A distinct penalty
2.
1.
Article 285. Other light threats
1.
2.
3.
Threatening another with a weapon, or

by drawing such weapon in a quarrel,
unless it be in lawful self-defense;
Orally threatening another, in the heat
of anger, with some harm constituting a
crime, without persisting in the idea
involved in his threat;
Orally threatening to do another any
harm not constituting a felony.
Under the first type, the
subsequent acts of the offender must show
that he did not persist in the idea involved
in his threat.
Preventing another, by means of

violence, threats or intimidation, from
doing something not prohibited by law;
Compelling another, by means of
violence, threats or intimidation, to do
something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong.
Elements
2.
Acts punishable:
Threats which are ordinarily

grave threats, if made in the heat of anger,
may be other light threats.
If the threats are directed to a
person who is absent and uttered in a
temporary fit of anger, the offense is only
other light threats.
3.
A person prevented another from doing

something not prohibited by law, or that he
compelled him to do something against his
will; be it right or wrong;
The prevention or compulsion be
effected
by
violence,
threats
or
intimidation; and
The person that restrained the will and
liberty of another had not the authority of
law or the right to do so, or in other words,
that the restraint shall not be made under
authority of law or in the exercise of any
lawful right.
The purpose of the law in
penalizing coercion and unjust vexation is
to enforce the principle that no person may
take the law into his hands, and that our
government is one of law, not of men.
In grave coercion, the act of
preventing by force must be made at the
time the offended party was doing or about
to do the act to be prevented. If the act
was already done when violence is exerted,
the crime is unjust vexation.
112
Instances when the act of

preventing another is classified as another
crime:
o
A
public
officer
preventing by means of violence or
threats
the
ceremonies
or
manifestations of any religion is guilty
of interruption of religious worship (Art.
132)
o
Any person who, by
force, prevents the meeting of a
legislative body (Art. 143)
o
Any person who shall
use force or intimidation to prevent any
member of Congress from attending
the meetings thereof, expressing his
opinions, or casting his vote (Art. 145)
Compelling another to do
something includes the offenders act of
doing it himself while subjecting another to
his will.
A person who is in actual
possession of a thing, even if he has no
right to that possession, cannot be
compelled by means of violence to give up
the possession, even by the owner himself.
This will amount to grave coercion.
Note however that an owner
and actual possessor a property has a right
to use such force was may be reasonably
necessary to prevent another from
dispossessing him of his property.
Instances when the act of
compelling is another offense:
o
A public officer not
authorized by law who compels a
person to change his residence (Art.
127)
o
Kidnapping a debtor
to compel him to pay his debt
(kidnapping for ransom under Art. 267)
The crime is not grave coercion
when the violence is employed to seize
anything not belonging to the debtor of the
offender.
This is light coercion under
Article 287.
Surrounding the victim in a
notoriously
threatening
attitude
is
sufficient to constitute intimidation.
The force or violence must be
immediate, actual or imminent.
The owner of a thing has no
right to prevent interference with it when
interference is necessary to avert greater
damage.
There is no grave coercion
when the accused acts in good faith in the
performance of duty.
Coercion is consummated even
if the offended party did not accede to the
purpose of the coercion. (MEL this is

doubtful, please check)
A
higher
penalty
(prision
mayor) is imposed if the coercion is
committed:
o
In violation of the
exercise of the right of suffrage;
o
To compel another to
perform any religious act.
Grave coercion
There is no clear
deprivation of liberty
Grave coercion
(compelling a person
to confess/give info)
The offended party is
NOT a prisoner
Illegal Detention
There must be actual
confinement or restraint
on the person of the
victim
Maltreatment of
prisoner
The offended party is a
prisoner
Timoner vs. People (1983)

Jose Timoner, the mayor of Daet, ordered the fencing off of
stalls which protruded into the sidewalks of Maharlika
highway. The stalls were recommended for closure by the
Municipal Health Officer.
HELD: There is no grave coercion when the restraint was
made under authority of law or in the lawful exercise of a
right. Mayor Timoner had the authority under the Civil
Code to abate public nuisances. Also, he was merely
implementing the orders of the municipal health officer
and was acting under the authority of a previous decision
which declared one of the stalls as a public nuisance.
Lee vs. CA (1991)
Francis Lee, the branch manager of Pacific Banking
Corporation, threatened to file charges against
complainant de Chin, unless she returned all the money
equivalent to a forged Midland National Bank cheque which
de Chin deposited in an account in the Pacific Bank.
HELD: To determine the degree of the intimidation, the
age, sex and condition of the person shall be borne in
mind. De Chin was pregnant, but she was also educated
and familiar with banking procedures. She could not have
been easily intimidated by Lee. Besides, a threat to
enforce ones claim through competent authority, if the
claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent. Lees threat
is not improper because there is nothing unlawful about the
threat to sue. Finally, there is a difference between
performing an act reluctantly, even against ones good
sense and judgment versus performing an act with no
consent at all, such as when a person acts against her will
or under a pressure cannot resist. In this case, de Chin
consented to signing the withdrawal slips. She did so
voluntarily, although reluctantly.
Hence, there is no
coercion.
People vs. Alfeche, Jr. (1992)

113
Complaint for Usurpation of Real Rights in Property (Art312)

in relation to Grave Coercion (Art286) was filed against
accused where it was alleged that he usurped the
possession of the tenants from the land by threatening to
kill them if the latter resisted. This was filed in the RTC.
RTC dismissed saying that the penalty under Art312 was
below the jurisdictional amount of the RTC therefore it had
no jurisdiction on the assumption that the grave coercion
was absorbed with the usurpation.
HELD: RTC had jurisdiction. Art312 defines a single, special
and indivisible crime with a 2-tiered penalty. The principal
one for the usurpation with violence/ intimidation and an
incremental penalty based on the value obtained in
addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence
and intimidation.
When the usurpation is done with violence or intimidation
(in the CAB, grave coercion), the accused must be
prosecuted under Art312 for usurpation and not for the acts
of violence or intimidation under Art286 for grave coercion.
But whenever appropriate, accused may be held liable for
the separate acts of violence or intimidation (e.g. grave
coercion). This separate penalty is in addition to the fine
based on the gain obtained by him.
People v. Santos, 378 SCRA 157 (2002)
FACTS: Josephine gave a 1-year loan to Leonida
but the latter was unable to timely pay the debt. For the
next 4 years, Josephine was unsuccessful in securing
payment from Leonida as the latter stubbornly maintained
her having already settled the account. Josephine, Manny
et. al., with the assistance of CIS agents, then brought
Leonida to Baguio City from her house in Pangasinan, in
order to surrender her to the custody of Baguio City
authorities where Josephine thought she could rightly seek
redress. She was advised, however, that it was in the
province of Pangasinan, not Baguio City, where a case could
be lodged. The trial court convicted Josephine on the
ground that the deprivation of Leonida of her liberty,
regardless of its purpose and although lasting for less than
twenty-four hours, was sufficient to support the charge of
kidnapping.
HELD: The circumstances that have surfaced
warrant a conviction for grave coercion. Grave coercion is
committed when a person prevents another from doing
something not prohibited by law or compelling him to do
something against his will, whether it be right or wrong,
and without any authority of law, by means of violence,
threats or intimidation. Its elements are First, that the
offender has prevented another from doing something not
prohibited by law, or that he has compelled him to do
something against his will, be it right or wrong; second,
that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence,
either by material force or such display of force as would
produce intimidation and control over the will of the
offended party; and, third, that the offender who has
restrained the will and liberty of another did so without
any right or authority of law. Where there is a variance
between the offense charged in the complaint or
information and that proved and the offense charged
necessarily includes the lesser offense established in
evidence, the accused can be convicted of the offense
proved.
Article 287. Light coercions

Elements:
1.
2.
Offender must be a creditor;

He seizes anything belonging to his
debtor:
3.
4.
The seizure of the thing be

accomplished by means of violence or a
display of material force producing
intimidation;
apply the same to the payment of the debt.
The seized property must be
applied to the PAYMENT of the debt, not
merely as SECURITY for the debt.
Taking possession of the thing
belonging to the debtor, through deceit
and misrepresentation, for the purpose of
applying the same to the payment of the
debt, is unjust vexation under the second
paragraph of this article.
Actual physical violence not
necessary, grave intimidation is sufficient.
Unjust vexation (other

second paragraph)
light
coercion,
Includes any human conduct

which, although not productive of some
physical or material harm, would, however,
unjustly annoy or vex an innocent person.
The act must cause annoyance, irritation,
vexation, torment, distress or disturbance.
There is no violence or
intimidation in unjust vexation.
Examples:
kissing a girl
(despite her objections, of course!)
When the first and third
elements of grave coercion are present,
but the second element (violence, threats
or intimidation) is absent, the crime is
unjust vexation.
People vs. Reyes (1934)
During a pabasa, the appellants started to construct a

barbed wire fence in front of the chapel. The noise
disrupted the ceremonies and some of the participants
even fled, fearing trouble. The appellants were convicted
of Offending Religious Feelings under Art. 133.
HELD: The construction of a fence even though irritating
and vexatious under the circumstances to those present is
not such an act as can be designated as notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful. The appellants
act was innocent and was simply to protect private
property rights. The circumstances under which the fence
was constructed late at night, vexing and annoying those
who had gathered indicate that the crime committed was
only unjust vexation.

114
c.
People vs. Anonuevo (1937)
Teodulo Anonuevo embraced and kissed Rosita Tabia and
held her breasts while in church. He was convicted of
abuse against chastity.
HELD: It is error to ascribe the conduct of appellant to
lustful designs or purposes in the absence of clear proof as
to his motive. The religious atmosphere and the presence
of many people belie the fact that he acted with lewd
designs. He either performed a bravado (in defiance of
alleged threats of Rositas boyfriend) or wished merely to
force Rosita to accept him as a lover. He is only guilty of
unjust vexation.
2.
a.
Ong Chiu Kwan admitted having ordered the

cutting of the electric, water and telephone lines of
complainant's business establishment because these lines
crossed his property line. He failed, however, to show
evidence that he had the necessary permits or
authorization to relocate the lines. Also, he timed the
interruption of electric, water and telephone services
during peak hours of the operation of business of the
complainant. Thus, petitioner's act unjustly annoyed or
vexed the complainant. Consequently, petitioner Ong Chiu
Kwan is liable for unjust vexation.
Baleros v. People (2007)
Article 288.
Other similar coercions
(compulsory purchase of merchandise
and payment of wages by means of
tokens)
Acts punishable:
1.
Forcing or compelling, directly or

indirectly, or knowingly permitting the
forcing or compelling of the laborer or
employee of the offender to purchase
merchandise of commodities of any kind
from him;
Elements:
a.
b.
Offender is any person, agent

or officer of any association or
corporation;
He or such firm or corporation
has employed laborers or employees;
Paying the wages due his laborer or

employee by means of tokens or object
other than the legal tender currency of the
Philippines, unless expressly requested by
such laborer or employee.
Elements:
Ong Chiu Kwan v. CA, 345 SCRA 586 (2000)
The court wishes to stress that malice, compulsion or

restraint need not be alleged in an Information for unjust
vexation. Unjust vexation exists even without the element
of restraint or compulsion for the reason that the term is
broad enough to include any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or material
harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent
person.
He forces or compels, directly

or indirectly, or knowingly permits to
be forced or compelled, any of his or its
laborers or employees to purchase
merchandise or commodities of any
kind from him or from said firm or
corporation.
b.
c.
Offender pays the wages due a

laborer or employee employed by him
by means of tokens or object;
Those tokens or objects are
other than the legal tender currency of
the Philippines;
Such employee or laborer does
not expressly request that he be paid
by means of tokens or objects.
As a general rule,
laborers and employees have the right to
receive just wages in legal tender.
Inducing
an
employee to give up part of his wages by
force, stealth, intimidation, threat or by any
other means is not punished under the
RPC, but under Article 116 of the Labor
Code.
Bar Questions
Grave Coercion (1998)
Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He
saw Roy wearing the said necklace. Isagani asked
Roy to return to him the necklace as it belongs to
him, but Roy refused. Isagani then drew his gun and
told Roy, "If you will not give back the necklace to
me, I will kill you!" Out of fear for his life and against
his will, Roy gave the necklace to Isagani, What
offense did Isagani commit? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art.
286, RPC) for compelling Roy, by means of serious
threats or intimidation, to do something against the
latter's will, whether it be right or wrong. Serious
threats or intimidation approximating violence
constitute grave coercion, not grave threats. Such is
the nature of the threat in this case because it was
committed with a gun, is a deadly weapon.
The crime is not robbery because intent to gain,
which is an essential element of robbery, is absent
since the necklace belongs to Isagani.
Grave Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner
(1999)
Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person
was tortured and maltreated by agents of the law in
order to compel him to confess a crime imputed to
him. The agents failed, however, to draw from him a

115
confession which was their intention to obtain

through the employment of such means. What crime
was committed by the agents of the law? Explain
your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the
agents of the law is a suspect and may have been
detained by them. If so and he had already been
booked and put in jail, the crime is maltreatment of
prisoner and the fact that the suspect was subjected
to torture to extort a confession would bring about a
higher penalty. In addition to the offender's liability
for the physical injuries inflicted. But if the suspect
was forcibly brought to the police headquarters to
make him admit the crime and tortured/ maltreated
to make him confess to such crime, but later released
because the agents failed to draw such confession,
the crime is grave coercion because of the violence
employed to compel such confession without the
offended party being confined in jail. (US vs. Cusi, 10
Phil 143)
It is noted that the offended party was merely
"brought" to the police headquarters and is thus not
a detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested,
the crime committed would be maltreatment of
prisoners.
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention
as follows: in coercion, the basis of criminal liability is
the employment of violence or serious intimidation
approximating violence, without authority of law, to
prevent a person from doing something not
prohibited by law or to compel him to do something
against his will, whether it be right or wrong; while in
Illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual
restraint or locking up of a person, thereby depriving
him of his liberty without authority of law. If there
was no intent to lock up or detain the offended party
unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not
committed.
Article 290. Discovering secrets through

seizure of correspondence
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Article 289. Formation, maintenance, and

prohibition of combination of capital or
labor through violence or threats
Elements:
1.
2.
Offender employs violence or threats,

in such a degree as to compel or force the
laborers or employers in the free and legal
exercise of their industry or work;
The purpose is to organize, maintain or
prevent coalitions of capital or labor, strike
of laborers or lockout of employers.
The act should not be a more
serious offense under the RPC.
For
example, if death or other serious physical
injuries are caused, the act should be
punished as such and not under this
Article.
Peaceful
picketing
is
not
prohibited, it is a valid exercise of freedom
of speech.
Employing violence or making

threat by picketers may make them liable
for coercion.
Preventing employees from
joining any registered labor organization is
punished under the Labor Code, not under
the RPC.
Offender is a private individual or even

a public officer not in the exercise of his
official function;
He seizes the papers or letters of
another;
The purpose is to discover the secrets
of such another person;
Offender is informed of the contents of
the papers or letters seized.
To seize means to place in the
control of someone a thing or to give him
the possession thereof. It is not necessary
that there be force or violence.
Prejudice is not an element of
the offense.
When the offender reveals the
contents of such paper or letters of another
to a third person, the penalty is higher.
Thus, revealing the secret is not an
element of the offense, it only qualifies the
offense.
This article is not applicable to:
o
parents, guardians or
persons entrusted with the custody of
minors with respect to papers or letters
of the children or minors placed under
their care or custody;
o
spouses with respect
to the papers or letters of either of
them.
Unlawful opening
of
mail
matter by an officer or employee of the
Bureau of Posts is punished under the
Administrative Code.
Discovering secrets
(Art. 290)
Offender is a private
individual, or public
officer not in exercise of
official function
The offender SEIZES the
papers or letters
Revealing secrets
(Art. 230)
Offender is a public
officer
The offender COMES TO
KNOW of the secrets of
the private individual by
reason of his office. Not
necessary that the
secrets are contained in

116
The purpose of the

offender is to discover
the secrets of another,
revelation to another is
not an element of the
crime
papers/letters
The offender reveals
such secrets without
justifiable reason.
Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse

of office
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
Offender is a manager, employee

or servant;
He learns the secrets of his
principal or master in such capacity;
He reveals such secrets.
Secrets must be learned by
reason of their employment.
The secrets must be revealed
by the offender.
Prejudice/damage
is
not
necessary under this Article.
Article 292.
secrets
Revealing
of
industrial
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Offender is a person in charge,

employee or workman of a manufacturing
or industrial establishment;
The
manufacturing
or
industrial
establishment has a secret of the industry
which the offender has learned;
Offender reveals such secrets;
Prejudice is caused to the owner.
Secrets
must
relate
to
manufacturing processes.
The act constituting the crime
is revealing the secret of the industry of
employer.
The revelation of the secret
might be made after the employee or
workman had ceased to be connected with
the establishment.
Prejudice is an element of the
offense.

117

Title 9 Liberty and Security

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 9 Liberty and Security

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 9 Liberty and Security

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title Nine

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND

Article 292. Revelation of industrial secrets

Chapter One. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY

Slight illegal Detention

Section Two Kidnapping of Minors

Slavery and servitude

Section Two Trespass to dwelling

Chapter Three DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF

Offender is a private individual;

Chapter Two CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY

Section Three Threats and Coercion

Section One Abandonment of helpless persons

The kidnapping lasts for more

If the offender is a public

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

It is essential in the crime of

People vs. Tomio

HELD: The crime is kidnapping because the victim was

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

People vs. Pavillare

People v. Silongan, 401 SCRA 459 (2003)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

victims until only Alexander was left to be guarded and in

trusted her, Edwin acceded. When Rosita and the child

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

The intention to deprive Sweet's parents of her

have his relatives bring the money to the vicinity of the

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

To warrant an imposition of the death penalty for

Mandatory Imposition of Death

Article 268. Slight illegal detention

He kidnaps or detains another, or

Article 269. Unlawful arrest

Offender arrests or detains another

The purpose of the offender is to

Offender is a private individual;

may be shown by the length of time the

The detention is not

and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating

Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to

Offender is entrusted with the custody

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

the offender has been entrusted with

It is clear that Gutierrez admitted the existence of the first

IN CAB, the minority of Kenneth was never disputed. The

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

trusted accused-appellant that they sent her money for the

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the

the aggravating circumstance of lack of respect due

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

offense of murder qualified by treachery.

demanded and before the institution of criminal

Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon

A minor (whether over or under seven

Article 272. Slavery

Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer