G.R. No. 174659 July 28, 2008 they were waiting for.

they were waiting for. Teresa replied that they were waiting for a certain Rocma
Bato, the name written at the back of the picture she received in Jalal Restaurant in
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, Manila. She showed the photo to Mamantak who stated that she knew Bato.
vs. Mamantak then told Teresa that she would ask a cousin of Bato if the latter was
RAGA SARAPIDA MAMANTAK and LIKAD SARAPIDA TAURAK, Accused- already in Kapatagan. Mamantak turned to Taurak, supposedly the cousin of Bato.
appellants. Taurak came near Teresa and PO3 Palafox and informed them that she had
Christopher. Taurak asked Teresa and PO3 Palafox to come with her but they
Facts: refused. Taurak reluctantly agreed to leave Mamantak with them while she fetched
Christopher.
At about 3:00 p.m. on December 13, 1999, Teresa went with Christopher and her
Several hours later, in the afternoon of the same day, Taurak returned and told
elder sister Zenaida to a McDonald’s outlet in the KP Tower in Juan Luna St.,
Teresa that Christopher was in a nearby ice plant. She asked Teresa to go with her
Binondo, Manila. Teresa and Christopher looked for a vacant table while Zenaida
proceeded to order their food. Shortly after Teresa took her seat, Christopher, a two- but the latter insisted on their agreement that the boy be handed over at the
year old minor, followed Zenaida to the counter. Barely had Christopher gone from carinderia. Taurak relented, left and came back after several minutes with
Christopher.
his mother’s sight when she realized that he had disappeared. She and her sister
frantically looked for him inside and outside the premises of the fast food outlet, to
no avail. As their continued search for the child was futile, they reported him missing Upon seeing her son, Teresa cried and embraced him. However, the child was
to the nearest police detachment. unmoved. He no longer recognized nor understood her for he could only speak in
the Muslim dialect. When asked who he was, the boy gave a Muslim name with
“Taurak” as surname.
The following day, Teresa went to several TV and radio stations to inform the public
of the loss of Christopher and to appeal for help and information. On February 25,
2001, Teresa received a call from a woman who sounded like a Muslim. The caller Mamantak and Taurak interrupted Teresa and demanded the ransom money. She
claimed to have custody of Christopher and asked for P30,000 in exchange for the answered that her niece had it and pointed to PO3 Palafox. Thereafter, Mamantak
boy. and PO3 Palafox boarded a jeepney which was parked outside, under Taurak’s
watchful eyes. Inside the jeepney, PO3 Palafox handed the ransom money to
Mamantak. At this juncture, PO3 Palafox gave the pre-agreed signal and the
On March 27, 2001, the same Muslim-sounding woman called and instructed Teresa
PAOCTF team then closed in and arrested Mamantak and Taurak.
to get a recent photo of her son from the Jalal Restaurant at the Muslim Center in
Quiapo, Manila. True enough, when Teresa went there, someone gave her a recent
picture of Christopher. She then contacted the mysterious woman through the Christopher relearned Tagalog after a month and gradually began to forget the
cellphone number the latter had previously given her. When the woman instructed incident. On the other hand, Teresa almost lost her sanity. At the time Christopher
her to immediately board a ship for Mindanao, Teresa reasoned that she had not was kidnapped, she was pregnant with her third child. The child, born very sickly,
raised the ransom money yet. They then agreed to conduct the pay off in the morning eventually died. The sisters Mamantak and Taurak were charged with kidnapping
of April 7, 2001 at Pitang’s Carinderia in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte. for ransom.

Teresa sought the help of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force Issue:
(PAOCTF). A team was formed and Police Officer (PO)3 Juliet Palafox was
designated to act as Teresa’s niece. Together with the PAOCTF team, Teresa left Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua meted by the RTC was proper.
for Mindanao on April 4, 2001. On April 7, 2001, they arrived in Iligan City and
proceeded to the designated meeting place. Ruling:

At around 8:30 a.m., while Teresa and PO3 Palafox were waiting at Pitang’s The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the
Carinderia, two women came. They were Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the
Sarapida Taurak. Mamantak approached Teresa and PO3 Palafox and asked who circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
 In this case, the payment of ₱30,000 was demanded as a condition for the release
of Christopher to his mother. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly considered it as a
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is demand for ransom.
subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
One final point of law. While the penalty for kidnapping for the purpose of extorting
xxx ransom from the victim or any other person under Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code is death, RA 9346 has banned the death penalty and reduced all death
sentences to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Pursuant to this law,
If the victim is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the
we reduce the penalty imposed on appellants from death to reclusion
victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the
perpetua, without eligibility for parole.
duration of his detention becomes inconsequential. The crime is qualified and
becomes punishable by death even if none of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is present.

The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty
coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not only the
imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and
for whatever length of time. And liberty is not limited to mere physical restraint but
embraces one’s right to enjoy his God-given faculties subject only to such restraints
necessary for the common welfare.

The two-year-old Christopher suddenly disappeared in Binondo, Manila and was

recovered only after almost 16 months from Taurak and Mamantak (both of them
private individuals) in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte. During the entire time the boy
was kept away from his mother, he was certainly deprived or restrained of his liberty.
He had no means, opportunity or capacity to leave appellants’ custody and return to
his family on his own. He had no choice but to stay with total strangers, go with them
to a far away place and learn a culture and dialect alien to him. At such a very tender
age, he was deprived of the liberty to enjoy the company and care of his family,
specially his mother.

The Court of Appeals considered the demand for ₱30,000 as a qualifying

circumstance which necessitated the imposition of the death penalty. On the other
hand, the trial court deemed the amount as too measly, compared to what must have
been actually spent for the care and subsistence of Christopher for almost two years.
It therefore treated the amount not as ransom but as a reimbursement of expenses
incurred for taking care of the child. (Kidnappers in Mindanao today call it
reimbursement for "board-and-lodging.")

Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption
of a captured person that will release him from captivity. No specific form of ransom
is required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as the
ransom is intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim’s freedom. 16 The
amount of and purpose for the ransom is immaterial.