PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

PAGALASAN
G.R. No. 131926

FACTS:
Spouses George and Desiree Lim and their three young children, one of whom was 10-year-old
Christopher Neal Lim, resided at Villa Consuelo Subdivision, General Santos City. The spouses hired
Ferdinand Cortez as their body guard.
Sometime in 04 September 1994, while the family was at home, Michael Pagalasan together with three
other men, all wearing bonnets over their faces and armed with handguns and grenades, ransacked their
house and kidnapped their sons George and Christopher using George’s Nissan car, with Pagalasan as the
driver. Prior to leaving, Desiree was warned via a handwritten letter not to cooperate with the military or take
any action, and that the only authentic communication from them will be coming through a letter bearing the
name Mr. Mubarak II or 2.
Subsequently, Desiree informed the police and George was rescued when the vehicle was
apprehended at a checkpoint. However, their son Christopher remained with the accused and demanded a
ransom of Php 3,000,000. Providentially, Christopher was rescued without by the police without the spouses
Lim having to pay the ransom.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Pagalasan is guilty for kidnapping for ransom

HELD:
No, Pagalasan is not guilty of kidnapping Christopher under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. To
warrant the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom,
the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following: (a) intent on the part of the accused to
deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; (c) motive of the accused,
which is extortion of ransom from the victim or any other person. In kidnapping or serious illegal detention for
ransom, the purpose of extorting ransom is a qualifying circumstance which must be alleged in the Information
and proved by the prosecution as the crime itself by words and overt acts of the accused 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. Although kidnapping for a certain purpose is a qualifying
circumstance, the law does not require that the purpose be accomplished. Ransom employed in the law is so
used in its common or ordinary sense: 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 or a third person as a condition
for the release of the victim.
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant conspired with
three others to kidnap the victims. However, it failed to prove that they intended to extort ransom from the
victims themselves or from some other person, with a view to obtaining the latters release. The kidnapping by
itself does not give rise to the presumption that the appellant and his co-conspirators purpose is to extort
ransom from the victims or any other person.
The only evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the element of extorting ransom are the three
handwritten letters. The said demand for ransom was a new and independent project of the appellant’s co-
conspirators, growing out of their own malice, without any a priori knowledge on the part of the appellant or
his post facto concurrence therewith. Thus, the Court finds Pagalasan guilty for kidnapping under Article 267 of
the RPC and slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the same, but not for kidnapping for ransom.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SURIAGA

FACTS:
On February 22, 1995, an Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 78, Quezon
City, charging Ruben Suriaga, Rosita Dela Cruz and Joel Isidera with kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal
detention committed as follows:
 “That on or about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of January 22, 1995, in Quezon City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Ruben Suriaga and Rosita Dela Cruz, being private
individuals, conspiring together, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and take away Nicole Ramos, a 2-year old female child, without the consent
of her parents, for the purpose of extorting ransom from the latter, and immediately thereafter, the said
accused still conspiring together, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously detain her and deprive her of her freedom and liberty up to and until about 4:30
oclock in the afternoon of the following day;
That accused Joel Isidera, having learned of the kidnapping and without having participated therein
either as principal or accomplice, take part subsequent to its commission by assisting the principal accused,
Ruben Suriaga and Rosita Dela Cruz, to profit by the effects of the crime by accompanying and driving for
accused ruben suriaga to the place where the pay-off was made and receiving the ransom money in the
amount of P100,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the parents of Nicole Ramos, spouses Johnny and
Mercedita Ramos in the said amount and such other amounts as may be awarded to them under the
provisions of the Civil Code.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused herein was correctly held guilty for the crime of kidnapping for ransom

HELD:
Yes. The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled
with indubitable proof of the accused’s 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 child’s liberty and that it was the intention of the accused to deprive the mother of the child’s
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
Rosita’s sister lived, located at the NAWASA Squatters Area, Ideal Subdivision, Quezon City, 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.
Thereafter, the appealed decision of the trial court convicting Ruben Suriaga of the crime of kidnapping
for ransom and sentencing him to suffer the death penalty is affirmed by the courts.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REYES

FACTS:
On 11 August 1999, an Information was filed before the RTC charging appellants with the special
complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide. The accusatory portion of the information reads:
 “The undersigned State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice hereby accuses Domingo Reyes y
Paje, Alvin Arnaldo y Avena and Joselito Flores y Victorio of the crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide
defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed as follows:
That on or about 11:00 p.m. on July 16, 1999, at Sitio Lambakin, Barangay Sto. Cristo, San
Jose del Monte, Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another and grouping themselves
together with Juanito Pataray y Cayaban, Federico Pataray y Cabayan and Rommel Libarnes y Acejo,
who are still at large, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and
intimidation and with use of firearms, carry away and deprive Robert Yao, Yao San, Chua Ong Ping
Sim, Raymond Yao, Ronald Matthew Yao, Lennie Yao, Charlene Yao, Jona Abagatnan and Josephine
Ortea against their will and consent on board their Mazda MVP van for the purpose of extorting money
in the amount of Php 5,000,000, that during the detention of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymong Yao,
said accused with intent to kill, willfully and unlawfully strangled Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond Yao
to death to the damage and prejudice of their heirs in such amount as may be awarded to them by this
Honorable Court.”
 
 
During their arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on the merits thereafter
followed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellants were correctly convicted for the violation of the special complex crime of
kidnapping for ransom with homicide

HELD:
Yes. Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of kidnapping is committed with the
concurrence of the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains
another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and
(4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or
detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical
injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person
kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
All of the foregoing elements were duly establish by the testimonial and documentary evidences for the
prosecution in the case at bar. First, appellants and their cohorts are private individuals. Second, appellants
and their cohorts kidnapped the Yao family by taking control of their van and detaining them in a secluded
place. Third, the Yao family was taken against their will. And fourth, threats to kill were made and the kidnap
victims include females. Thus, the decision finding the accused guilty of the crime of kidnapping for ransom
with homicide is affirmed with modifications.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BRINGAS

FACTS:
The accused-appellants herein are charged with carnapping and kidnapping for ransom one Patrick
Teng, the three-year-old child of Eric Teng.
The facts of the case show that on 14 December 1884, Maricel (the househelper of Teng) received a
phone call from Eric’s brother-in-law, Johnson, informing that a gift will be delivered for Patrick. She was
instructed to wait for the driver who will be arriving soon. Thereafter, the said arrived and Maricel proceeded to
open the gate.
To the latter’s surprise, a gun was poked to her side by Calaguas and she was pulled towards Eric’s
house. She was made to knock on the door, which was opened by Eric’s sister. Subsequently, the rest of the
household of the Teng’s were brought to the second floor where they were gagged by a packaging tape.
Patrick Teng was then kidnapped by the group where they later demanded a Php 10,000,000 ransom in
exchange for the latter. The incident was reported to PACC Special Operations Task Force Habagat and
Patrick was eventualy rescued.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the alleged crime of kidnapping for ransom was proven beyond reasonable doubt

HELD:
Yes, the kidnapping for ransom was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention, under Art. 267of the RPC, has the following elements:

(1) the offender is a private individual; not either of the parents of the victim or a public officer
who has a duty under the law to detain a person;

(2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any 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 following circumstances is present:
 
(a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; 
(b) it is committed by simulating public authority; 
(c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill him are made or 
(d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public official.
 
 It must be noted that when the victim is a minor and the accused is any of the parents, the crime
is Inducing a minor to abandon his home defined and penalized under the second paragraph of Art. 271 of the
RPC. While if it is a public officer who has a duty under the law to detain a person but detains said person
without any legal ground is liable for Arbitrary detention defined and penalized under Art. 124 of the RPC.
 The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with
indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect the same. Moreover, if the victim is a minor, or the victim is
kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention becomes
inconsequential. Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a
captured person that will release him from captivity.
 In the instant case, all the elements of the crime of kidnapping for ransom has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The accused are all private individuals. The kidnapping of Patrick Teng, then three years
old, a minor is undisputed. That ransom was demanded and paid is established. Thus, the crime alleged has
been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RIMORIN

FACTS:
Appellant Rimorin, Castillo, and Garcia were initially charged in an information dated 22 June 1992,
worded as follows:
"That on or about the 16th day of April, 1981, in the Municipality of San Fernando, Province of La
Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another with evident premeditation and treachery and armed with
deadly weapons, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously forcibly take and carry away Peter Lim
against his will in the presence of his sister Amelia Lim and later attack, assault and strike the victim with the
use of the deadly weapons causing his death thereafter to the damage and prejudice of his lawful heirs. That
the crime was committed with aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle."
An amended information dated 31 August 1992, was later filed to include the name of another victim,
Louie Gonzales.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court correctly ruled in convicting appellant for two counts of kidnapping with murder

HELD:
Yes. For each victim killed, the court found that the trial court correctly convicted appellant of the crime
of kidnapping with murder. The offenses were committed on April 16, 1981, prior to the effectivity of R.A. No.
7659 on December 31, 1993. The latter provision amended Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code, thus now
providing that where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the
killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no
longer be complexed under the last paragraph of Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
In this instance, it is evident that the purpose of appellant and his companions when they kidnapped the
victims was to kill them. Hence, there were two counts of the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. Thus,
the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court finding appellant Virgilio Rimorin guilty of two complex crimes
of kidnapping with murder and imposing on him two sentences of reclusion perpetua is hereby affirmed with
modification.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LACANIETA
G.R. No. 124299

FACTS:
Sometime in 20 March 1987 in the Municipality of Sibalom, Province of Antique, Republic of the
Philippines, the accused herein, Jerry Ballenas, together with Cesar Lacanieta, who is still at large, and Alberto
Salvador and Carlito Gamad, both deceased, being then armed with gun and knife and by means of force and
intimidation and with lewd designs, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abduct and carry away Wilma Tayo at a gun point to an
uninhabited place and while there, by means of force and intimidation, have carnal knowledge of the said
Wilma Tayo against the latter’s will and contrary to the provisions of article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in
relation to Article 342 of the same Code.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of forcible abduction with rape

HELD:
This Court is convinced that the trial court did not err in concluding that Ballenas is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the forcible abduction and rape of Wilma.
The two elements of forcible abduction are (1) the taking of a woman against her will and (2) with lewd
designs. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when there is carnal
knowledge with the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2)
when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve
years of age or is demented.
In this case, Consorcia, the mother of Wilma, positively identified Ballenas as the person who went to
her house and abducted her daughter at gunpoint that fateful night. Moreover, the testimony of one Florencio
and the medico-legal report on the victim’s body supports the theory of the prosecution that after the abduction
of Wilma, Ballenas together with Lacanieta, Salvador and Gamad raped and stabbed Wilma.
The court thus affirms the finding that Ballenas committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape as
punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 342 and 48 of the same Code.

* * * END * * *