Kidnapping with serious illegal detention and robbery

11. People of the Philippines Vs. Elmer Avancena y Cabanela, et al.

DOCTRINES: (This may be deleted if too lengthy!)

Even if they were employed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, detaining any private
person for the purpose of extorting any amount of money could not, in any way, be construed as
within their official functions. If proven, they can be guilty of serious illegal detention.

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

Taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if
the offender has no opportunity to dispose of the thing."

FACTS:
Elmer Avancena was, according to his claim, an enforcement officer who was arrested during an
entrapment operation. He was alleged, together with his conspirators, of abducting and illegally
detaining Rizaldo and extorting a sum of money from the father of the mentioned victim. He
claimed that this case was Alfonso’s revenge since he alleged that Rizaldo was involved with drugs
matters. This however was not substantiated during the trial. When the decision was made, the
court found the accused-appellant guilty as charged beyond reasonable doubt. The case was
elevated to the CA who affirmed RTC decision. Thus, the present case was brought before the SC.
ISSUE:
Should the accused-appellant’s conviction be sustained?
RULING:
Yes. The law states that any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other
matter deprive him of his liberty is considered liable to a penalty under Art. 267 of the RPC. It is
considered kidnapping and serious illegal detention. SC further rules that the accused-appellant is
also guilty of the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.
In the case at bar this was seen when Avancena demanded a sum of money in exchange of the
liberty of the person kidnapped. Considering the weight of evidence presented by the prosecution,
accused-appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping with serious illegal
detention and robbery.
 PD 1866

32. MARCELO G. SALUDAY vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Doctrine:

The Court on several occasions ruled that either the testimony of a representative of, or a certification
from, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that a person is not a
licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of
possession of illegal firearms.

Facts:

On 5 May 2009, Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the
Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco
(Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while
allowing the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the presence and
intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals. Buco lifted
the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. SCAA Buco then requested petitioner to board the bus
and open the bag. Petitioner obliged and the bag revealed the following contents: (1) an improvised .30
caliber carbine bearing serial number 64702; (2) one magazine with three live ammunitions; (3) one
cacao-type hand grenade; and (4) a ten-inch hunting knife. SCAA Buco then asked petitioner to produce
proof of his authority to carry firearms and explosives. Unable to show any, petitioner was immediately
arrested and informed of his rights by SCAA Buco.

The RTC finds the petitioner GUILTY of illegal possession of high powered firearm, ammunition and
explosive which was affirmed by the CA with modification.

Issue:

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals are correct in convicting the petitioner for the offenses
charged?

Ruling:

Yes. The Court on several occasions ruled that either the testimony of a representative of, or a
certification from, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that a
person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second
element of possession of illegal firearms. The prosecution more than complied when it presented both.

For a person to be charged for illegal possession of high-powered firearm and ammunition under PD
1866, and illegal possession of explosive under the same law, the elements of both offenses must be
taken on account, to wit:(1) existence of the firearm, ammunition or explosive; (2) ownership or
possession of the firearm, ammunition or explosive; and (3) lack of license to own or possess. As regards
the second and third elements, the Court of Appeals concurred with the trial court that petitioner was in
actual or constructive possession of a high-powered firearm, ammunition, and explosive without the
requisite authority.

Considering further that the Court of Appeals merely echoed the factual findings of the trial court, the
Court finds no reason to disturb them. Thus, the petitioner is guilty of illegal possession of high-powered
firearm, ammunition, and explosive under Presidential Decree No. 1866.
 RAPE THRU SEXUAL ASSAULT
54. Manuel Barallas Ramilo vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 234841
June 3, 2019

Facts:
That on or about the 27th day of August 2013, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, the accused with lewd
design and by means of force, threat and intimidation and/ or with grave abuse of parental authority did
then and there willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously commit sexual abuse and lascivious
conduct upon her daughter MDR MINOR- VICTIM INQ-13H-00553, a twelve (12) year old minor at the
time of the commission of the offense, by then and there lying beside her then embracing her and
inserting his fingers inside her vagina thereby causing serious danger to the normal growth and
development of the child MDR MINOR- VICTIM INQ-13H-005533, to her damage and prejudice. The RTC
rendered its decision finding Manuel guilty of the crime charged and was affirmed by the CA with
modification as to the penalty and award for damages.

Issue:
Whether the accused be held guilty of rape through sexual assault?

Ruling:
Yes. Manuel should be held guilty as duly found by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court
that the victim positively and categorically stated that Manuel, her own biological father, inserted his
finger into her vagina.

But in view of the circumstances, instead of rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A (2), the
accused should be held liable for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. 7610. In a
plethora of cases, the court held that lascivious conduct is covered by the definition under RA No. 7610
where the penalty is Reclusion Temporal medium and the act is likewise covered by sexual assault under
Art. 266-A (2) of the RPC which is punishable by prision mayor, the offender should be liable for violation
of Sec. 5(b) Art. III of R.A. 7610, where the law provides for the higher penalty of reclusion temporal
medium, if the offended party is a child victim.

It is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the lascivious act, the child was twelve (12) years
old. Thus R.A 7610 finds application herein. However, before an accused can be held criminally liable for
lascivious conduct under Sec. 5(b) Art. III of R.A No. 7610, the court held that the requisites of
lasciviousness must be met. As for the penalty, since the perpetrator of the offense is the father of the
victim, and such alternative circumstances of relationship was alleged in the information and proven
during trial, the same should be considered as an aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall then be
imposed in its maximum period, in consonance with Sec. 31 (c) Art. XII of R.A. 7610.