PEOPLE vs.

ABLAZA
G.R. No. L-27352
October 31, 1969

FACTS: Victim Huggins, who was sweeping the front of her aunt’s house in Makati, was grabbed by two men and
forcibly taken to a taxicab where accused Ablaza was waiting Huggins was taken to the house of Ablaza’s compadre.
Huggins was kept for a week with Ablaza and his compadres always guarding her to prevent her escape. Huggins’
uncle, in the company of Contabulary men, was able to rescue her from Ablaza while they were inside the Malolos
Municipal Building.

ISSUE: a. Whether or not Ablaza committed kidnapping with serious illegal detention.

RULING: a. Yes. Ablaza’s contention that he should be adjudged of abduction with rape rather than kidnapping with
serious illegal detention bears no merit. He stood trial for kidnapping with serious illegal detention, and the
deprivation of the complainant’s liberty, which is the essential element of the offense was duly proven and other
crimes committed in the course of the victim’s confinement is immaterial to the case. The kidnapping became
consummated when the victim as actually deprived of her freedom which makes it proper to prosecute the accused
under Article 267 of the RPC. The surrounding circumstance make it clear that the main purpose of Ablaza in
detaining Huggins was to coerce her to withdraw her previous charges against him.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BENJAMIN ONG y KHO and BIENVENIDO QUINTOS Y SUMALJAG, defendants-appellants.

FACTS: Ong and Sumaljag killed one Henry Chua and thereafter extorting money from his family through the use of
a ransom note, kidnapped and carryied away Chua, initially by means of a friendly gesture and later through the use
of force, in an automobile, and later after having taken him to an uninhabited place detained him and killed him by
stabbing the abdominal region several times with an icepick, inflicting upon Chua mortal wounds on his vital organs,
which directly caused his death.

ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of kidnapping with murder

HELD: No. We hold that there was no kidnapping, but only murder, because the detention of Chua was
only incidental to the main objective of murdering him and was not a necessary means for the commission of the
murder.

It seems clear that the weight of authority is in favor of the proposition that where the victim was taken from one
place to another, solely for the purpose of killing him and not for detaining him for any length of time or for the
purpose of obtaining ransom for his release, the crime committed is murder, and not the complex crime of
kidnapping with murder.

The time interval when the deceased Henry Chua was actually deprived of his liberty was short and the same was
only incidental to the main objective of murdering him.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANATALIO SALIENTE (alias UDTUHAN) and
JULIAN MONTILLA, Defendants-Appellants.

Saliente and Motilla came to the house of where Juana was then staying. Telling Juana that the had come for by her
by order of their "chief," they asked her to go along with them and when she refused she was threatened by
defendant Montilla with a bolo and by defendant Saliente with a pistol and then taken against her will to the latter's
house. Juana was kept in Saliente's house for two nights and one day, but no attempt was made against her honor.
Montilla admitted having taken Juana from the house of her aunt, but put up the defense that this was done with her
consent, since they had long been sweethearts and had, on the day in question, exchanged notes regarding their
elopement.
ISSUE: WON the defendants are guilty of slight illegal detention

HELD: Yes. The crime committed is that of slight illegal detention under the third paragraph of article 268 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18, it appearing that the defendants voluntarily released Juana
Briones within three days from the commencement of her detention without having attained the purpose intended
and before the institution of the criminal action against them.

G.R. No. L-21991 March 31, 1964

LUIS ASISTIO, ET AL., petitioners,

vs.
HON. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO,

Petitioners Luis Asistio et al. with threats to kill the person of CHUA PAO, and for the purpose of extorting ransom in
the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) from the said CHUA PAO or from his wife did, then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap, detain and deprive the person of the said CHUA PAO of his liberty, to
his damage and prejudice.

Iissue: Whether or not article 268 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable in this case.

HELD: Yes. Slight detention where, in addition to the absence of any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 267,
there were, besides three other circumstances, the voluntary release of the kidnappee with 3 days from seizure, plus
the fact that the purpose intended (whatever it should be, ransom, marriage, disclosure of secrets, etc.) was not
attained, plus the third fact that the release was effected before the institution of criminal proceedings against the
culprits or culprits. Clearly, therefore, Articles 267 and 268 were originally mutually exclusive.

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANTIAGO FONTANILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

FACTS: The defendant, Santiago Fontanilla, went to the hamlet of Magatel, where five men were engaged in tilling a
tract of land under the directions of Apolonio de Peralta. The prisoners were held in detention a couple of hours at
the jail, after which they were turned loose by the orders of the municipal president or the justice of the peace.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was unlawful arrest

HELD: Yes. It does not appear that the persons whom the accused arrested committed any crime which would justify
their arrest without warrant by a peace officer, and the evidence of record leaves no room for doubt that there was
no justification whatever for their arrest by a private person. The accused was not a peace officer, and was not
exercising any public function when he made the arrest, nor did he have any authority to seize trespassers upon his
land and commit them to the public jail, yet the fact remains that he did apprehend and detain these parties, and
turn them over to the authorities.

When it appears that a private person has locked up or detained another without authority of law, but that he did so
for the purpose of turning the prisoner over to the authorities, the penalty prescribed in article 483 of the Penal
Code, and not those provided in article 481, is that which should be imposed.

G.R. No. L-69236 August 19, 1986

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
GENEROSO JO, FELIPE LAPITAN, VIRGILIO ROCA, DELMA SOLEDAD ROCA, CEFERINO LOPEZ,
LUZVIMINDA SERRANO LOPEZ and ANING LIPAYON, accused VIRGILIO ROCA, accused-appellant.
FACTS: Complainant Elisa Casal Jo was married to accused Generoso Jo .They begot three children. Sometime in
December 1975, the couple separated. Generoso then began living with his mistress. On the other hand, complainant
Elisa and her three children stayed with her mother in La Paz, Leyte.

ISSUE: Whether or not accused is guilty of the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor.

HELD: Yes. There should be no question that the minors were deprived of their liberty and actually restrained for
more than five days

We find the essential elements of the crime proven. The kidnapping was directly participated in by ROCA and
LAPITAN, both private individuals; the three children were deprived of their liberty for they could not leave LAPITAN's
house at win; their detention was illegal there being no justification therefor, the detention lasted for more than five
days; and the persons kidnapped were minors.

US VS. PERALTA

FACTS: Esteban Gemefino, a servant, having run away from the house of the above-named Quirino Peralta and
Vicente Peralta, went to the house of Isabel Geranda, at a place named Naga, within the former town of Cabancalan,
now consolidated with the town of Ilog, in this province, and employing violence upon the said Isabel Geranda,
whom they kicked, breaking one of her right ribs, and seized and took away with them Cenon Gemefino, a child
under 2 years of age, a grandson of the latter. They took the child to their house and tied it to a wooden pillar, for
the purpose of holding it until the said Esteban Gemefino, an elder brother to said Cenon, should make his
appearance or return to the house of the accused. This act being a violation of the law.”

ISSUE: Whether or not accused is guilty of the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor.

HELD: The seizure by violent means, of a child under 7 years of age, with the sole purpose of depriving him of liberty
and separating him from his parents or relatives, and afterwards returning him to the latter, when the purpose of the
act is accomplished, does not constitute the crime of kidnapping, defined in article 484 of the Penal Code, but that of
unlawful detention, prescribed and punished by article 481 of said Code.