Title Nine Article 267.

Kidnapping and serious illegal

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND detention
SECURITY
Elements:
Chapter One. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
1. Offender is a private individual;
Section One – Illegal Detention
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
Article 268. Slight illegal Detention
manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
Article 269. Unlawful arrest 3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be
illegal;
Section Two – Kidnapping of Minors 4. In the commission of the offense, any of the
Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor following circumstances is present:
Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home
a. The kidnapping lasts for more than
Section Three – Slavery and servitude 3 days;
Article 272. Slavery
Article 273. Exploitation of Child Labor
b. It is committed simulating public
Article 274. Service rendered under compulsion in authority;
payment of debt c. Any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
Chapter Two – CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY detained or threats to kill him are made; or
d. The person kidnapped or detained
Section One – Abandonment of helpless persons and is a minor, female, or a public officer.
exploitation of minors
Article 275. Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of one’s own victim
 If the offender is a public officer,
Article 276. Abandoning a minor the crime is arbitrary detention. The public
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by person officer must have a duty under the law to detain
entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents a person to be liable for arbitrary detention. If
Article 278. Exploitation of minors he has no such duty, and he detains a person, he
Article 279. Additional penalties for other offenses is liable under this article.
 When the victim is a minor and the
Section Two – Trespass to dwelling accused is one of the parents, the penalty shall
Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling
Article 281. Other forms of trespass
be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 300
pesos or both (Article 271, par. 2)
Section Three – Threats and Coercion  The essential element of kidnapping
Article 282. Grave threats is the deprivation of the offended party’s
Article 283. Light threats liberty under any of the four instances
Article 284. Bond for good behavior enumerated. But when the kidnapping was
Article 285. Other light threats committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, it
Article 286. Grave coercions
is not necessary that one or any of circumstances
Article 287. Light coercions
Article 288. Other similar coercions (compulsory
enumerated be present.
purchase of merchandise and payment of wages  When the kidnapping is done for
by means of tokens) the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim
Article 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of or any other person, actual demand for ransom is
combination of capital or labor through violence or not necessary, as long as it can be proven that
threats the kidnapping was done for the purpose of
extorting ransom.
Chapter Three – DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF  It is essential in the crime of illegal
SECRETS
detention that there be actual confinement or
Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of restriction of the person of the offended party.
correspondence  Not necessary that the victim be
Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office placed in an enclosure, as long as he is deprived,
Article 292. Revelation of industrial secrets 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.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

94
 Where the victim is taken from one
place to another solely for the purpose of killing Lim took in two young girls who were loitering in front of
her sari-sari store. Lim sent the younger girl to Cebu while
him, the crime committed is murder.
the older girl stayed in the store. Days later, the girls’
 Maximum penalty is imposed in the father arrived to bring the two girls back with him.
ff. cases:
o If the purpose of detention is to HELD: There is no kidnapping in this case because the two
extort ransom minors voluntarily entered Lim’s residence and there was
no showing that there was actual confinement or
o When the victim is killed or dies as
restriction of the person of the offended party. Both girls
a consequence of the detention were free to go in and out of the store.
o When the victim is raped
o When the victim is subjected to
torture or dehumanizing acts. People vs. Padica
 Conspiracy to extort ransom makes A 14-year old boy was brought to a sugarcane plantation,
all the conspirators liable under this article, where he was shot and killed immediately. The accused
including those who did not take part in the demanded ransom soon after.
money.
HELD: Where the evident purpose of taking the victim was
Illegal detention Arbitrary detention to kill him, and from the acts of the accused it cannot be
inferred that the latter’s purpose was to actually detain or
Committed by a private Committed by a public
deprive the victim of his liberty, the subsequent killing of
individual, who unlawfully officer or employee, who
the victim did not constitute the crime of murder. The
deprives a person of his detains a person without
demand for ransom did not convert the crime into
liberty legal ground kidnapping since no deprivation of liberty was involved.
Crime against personal Crime against the
liberty fundamental laws of the
state People vs. Luartes

Luartes kidnapped a 3-yr old girl outside Isettan Recto. The

People vs. Tomio girl was in the mall with her mother, who lost her. Luartes’
defense was that he was merely helping the lost girl find
A Japanese national named Tomio was arrested after being her mother. He says he had no intention of kidnapping
implicated for possessing marijuana. Two other Japanese Junichi and that the prosecution witnesses (police officers)
claimed that they paid money for Tomio’s release and so merely misconstrued his actuations.
they held Tomio under their custody, asking for the amount
they allegedly advance to the police. HELD: If indeed accused-appellant was trying to help the
lost child, why then did he misrepresent himself as her
HELD: Even if the two accused only wanted to recover the uncle? And, if his intention was only to help the child look
money they allegedly advanced to the police, the crime is for her mother, why did he have to board a passenger
still kidnapping because of the essential element of jeepney taking the child with him?
deprivation of liberty.
The essence of kidnapping under Art. 267 is the actual
deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the intent
People vs. Mercado of the accused to effect it. The crime in this case clearly
comes under par. 4 of Art. 267 of the Penal Code. The
The accused held a knife against his girlfriend’s sister for detention was committed by Luartes who was a private
nearly five hours. The victim’s ordeal ended only after the individual and the person kidnapped was a three (3)-year
barangay captain was able to subdue the accused. old minor.

HELD: The crime is kidnapping because the victim was

actually restrained or deprived of her liberty, People vs. Pavillare
notwithstanding the fact that the accused only wanted the
victim to produce her. 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
People vs. Del Socorro with ransom because the evidence proves that their prime
motive was to obtain money and that the complainant was
Del Socorro grabbed a little girl and brought the child to a detained only for two hours.
doctor, asking for 700 pesos in return. The doctor gave the
child to her spinster aunt. HELD: The pretense that the money was supposedly in
exchange for the dropping of the charges for rape is not
HELD: The defense that the child voluntarily went with the supported by the evidence. The accused released the
accused is belied by the fact that the child openly resisted complainant when the money was handed over to him and
the abduction and even had to be carried to the jeep. 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
People vs. Lim of the private complainant.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

95
 talking over his hand-held radio with someone in the
The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours Maguindanaoan dialect ordered the driver to drive slowly
does not alter the nature of the crime committed. The towards the highway. Oteng and his bodyguards alighted
crime of kidnapping is committed by depriving the victim of somewhere long the way. As they neared the highway,
liberty whether he is placed in an enclosure or simply Macapagal ordered the driver to stop. Suddenly, 15 armed
restrained from going home. As squarely expressed in men appeared. Alexander and his 3 companions were
Article 267, above-quoted the penalty of death is ordered to go out of the vehicle, tied up, and blindfolded.
imposable where the detention is committed for the Macapagal and Teddy were also tied up and blindfolded,
purpose of extorting ransom, and the duration of the but nothing more was done to them. The 4 were taken to a
detention is not material. 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
People vs. Ballenas ransom which was hand-carried by a certain Jafar, alias
Dante, and two of the victims, Tormis and Cinco, who both
Accused Ballenas pointed a short firearm to Wilma and later managed to escape. No ransom was obtained so other
Consorcia inside their home. Accused told Wilma to persons were sent and one of the victims, Rejuso to
accompany him to Maria his girlfriend. Wilma refused, as renegotiate with Alexander’s wife. No agreement was
they were about to eat supper. Consorcia also told her likewise reached. Seven days later, Alexander and Rejuso
daughter, Wilma not to go out because it was already dark. were transferred to the town proper and was guarded them
Accused Ballenas forced Wilma to go out with him. Because by several men. When the kidnappers learned that the
of the abduction, Consorcia sought the help of a neighbor, military was looking for Alexander, they returned to the
Andres but to no avail, as Andres shut the door on her for mountain hideout and stayed there for two weeks.
fear of Ballenas as the latter is known as a member of the At one time, Alexander Saldaña was made to stay
dreaded Sparrow Unit of the NPA. at a river hideout where a certain Commander Kugta held
him and sheltered his abductors for at least a week. There,
The following morning, Consorcia reported the abduction of Alexander saw Macapagal with Manap and other armed
Wilma to her son-in-law who is a member of the Integrated men. These men brought Alexander to different places and
National Police. She learned from Aurelio that Wilma was was made to write more letters to his family. All in all
already dead. The police then proceeded to the scene of appellant was detained for a total of 6 months. Saldaña
the incident. Ballenas was found guilty of forcible was later released to the military in exchange for a relative
abduction with rape and sentenced to Reclusion perpetua. of one of the abductors who was caught delivering a
ransom note to Alexander’s family.
HELD: BALLENAS committed the crime of forcible
abduction with rape on March 20, 1987, before the passage HELD: The essence of the crime of kidnapping
of Republic Act 7659 or the Heinous Crimes Law that took and serious illegal detention as defined and penalized in
effect on December 31, 1993. At the time that BALLENAS Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is the actual
committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape, the deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with proof
penalty then applicable was reclusion perpetua to death. beyond reasonable doubt of an intent of the accused to
The use by BALLENAS of a firearm in committing the crime, effect the same. It is thus essential that the following be
a fact duly alleged in the information and proven in court, established by the prosecution: (1) the offender is a private
should have warranted the imposition of the death penalty. individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
However, since the crime took place prior to the other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act
implementation of RA 7659, the trial court correctly ruled of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the
that the penalty that can be imposed on BALLENAS is commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances
reclusion perpetua. Hence, despite the presence of the enumerated in Article 267 be present. But if the kidnapping
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty herein of was done for the purpose of extorting ransom, the fourth
reclusion perpetua would not be affected. Under Article 63 element is no longer necessary.
of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion There is no mistaking the clear, overwhelming
perpetua should be applied regardless of any mitigating or evidence that the appellants abducted Alexander Saldaña
aggravating circumstance that may have attended the and his companions at gunpoint and deprived them of their
commission of a crime. freedom. That the appellants took shifts guarding the
victims until only Alexander was left to be guarded and in
People v. Silongan, 401 SCRA 459 (2003) 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
FACTS: Businessman Alexander Saldaña went to criminal design.
Isulan, Sultan Kudarat with Rejuso, Tormis, and Cinco to
meet with Macapagal Silongan alias Commander Lambada
concerning the gold nuggets that were purportedly being People v. Cortez, 324 SCRA 335 (2000)
sold by the latter. During the meeting Macapagal told them
that someone in his family has just died and that he has to FACTS: Mendoza was in her house when accused
pick up an elder brother in hence, they had better transact Cortez, Callos and Betonio, all armed with bolos, arrived.
business in the afternoon. In the afternoon, Alexander’s They were looking for Lolita's cousin, Esminda, and were
group and Macapagal, with Teddy and Oteng both surnamed threatening to kill him on sight. Unable to find Santos, they
Silongan, traveled to fetch Macapagal’s brother. decided to abduct Lolita to prevent her from reporting the
Afterwards, the group returned to Isulan on Macapagal’s incident to the police. Accompanied by the other two,
orders. At Isulan, Macapagal gave additional instructions to accused Callos pointed his bolo at Lolita's back and dragged
wait until dark allegedly because the funeral arrangements her to the mountain. They brought her to the house of
for his relative were not yet finished. When the group Torral, an uncle of accused Cortez, where Cortez bound
finally got on their way, Macapagal who was earlier busy her hand with a belts and thereafter continued their search

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

96
for Santos. Hours later, PO2 Santos and barangay captain them. Prior thereto, Nicole was rescued in a shanty where
Colarina rescued found Lolita outside the nipa hut of the Rosita’s sister lived.
Torrals, conversing with Pablo Torral. Lolita told them that
the Torrals did not prevent her from leaving their house. HELD: The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the
However, she did not attempt to escape for fear that the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with
accused would make good their threat to kill her. indubitable proof of the accused’s intent to effect the
Appellants allege failure to establish one of the essential same. And if the person detained is a child, the question
elements of the crime, i.e., deprivation of the victim's that needs to be addressed is whether there is evidence to
liberty. They point out that at the time of the rescue, show that in taking the child, there was deprivation of the
Lolita was not physically confined inside the house as they child’s liberty and that it was the intention of the accused
found her standing outside, conversing with Pablo Torral. to deprive the mother of the child’s custody.
They stress that Lolita herself declared that she was not Undoubtedly, the elements of kidnapping for ransom
prevented by the Torrals from leaving the house. have been sufficiently established by the prosecution
considering the following circumstances: 1) appellant, a
HELD: For the crime of kidnapping to prosper, private individual, took the young Nicole without personally
the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of his seeking permission from her father; 2) appellant took the
liberty, in any manner, has to be established by indubitable girl and brought her to a shanty where Rosita’s sister lived,
proof. However, it is not necessary that the offended party without informing her parents of their whereabouts; 3) he
be kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of detained the child and deprived her of her liberty by failing
locomotion. In the case at bar, the deprivation of Lolita's to return her to her parents overnight and the following
liberty was amply established by evidence. When the day; and 4) he demanded a ransom of P100,000.00 through
appellants failed to find Lolita's cousin, they forcibly telephone calls and gave instructions where and how it
dragged her to the mountains and kept her in the house of should be delivered.
the Torrals. Cortez even bound her hands with a belt.
Although at the time of the rescue, she was found outside People v. Acbangin, 337 SCRA 454 (2000)
the house talking to Pablo Torral, she explained that she
did not attempt to leave the premises for fear that the FACTS: Jocelyn brought four-year old
appellants would make good their threats to kill her should Sweet to Niu’s house without the consent of the child’s
she do so. Her fear is not baseless as the appellants knew father Danilo Acbangin. When Danilo asked Jocelyn about
where she resided and they had earlier announced that her daughter who he last saw playing in the latters house,
their intention in looking for Lolita's cousin was to kill him Jocelyn denied knowing of the child's whereabouts. After 2
on sight. Certainly, fear has been known to render people days, Jocelyn acompanied Danilo, Sweet's grandfather and
immobile. Indeed, appeals to the fears of an individual, police officers to Niu's house. The latter voluntarily turned
such as by threats to kill or similar threats, are equivalent Sweet over to her father and the policemen. Sweet was
to the use of actual force or violence which is one of the well-dressed and smiling. She ran to her father and
elements of the crime of kidnapping under Article 267 (3) embraced him.
of the Revised Penal Code.
HELD: In cases of kidnapping, if the person
People v. Suriaga, 381 SCRA 159 (2002) detained is a child, the question is whether there was
actual deprivation of the child's liberty, and whether it was
FACTS: Edwin Ramos was cleaning the car of his the intention of the accused to deprive the parents of the
older brother, Johnny who was taking care of his 2-year old custody of the child.
daughter, Nicole, playing inside the car. Suriaga, a cousin Sweet was deprived of her liberty. True, she was
of the Ramos brothers, arrived. He was accompanied by his treated well. However, there is still kidnapping. For there
live-in-partner Rosita. Suriaga requested Edwin if he could to be kidnapping, it is not necessary that the victim be
drive the car, but the latter declined, saying he did not placed in an enclosure. It is enough that the victim is
have the keys. Meanwhile, Johnny returned to his house restrained from going home. Given Sweet's tender age,
because a visitor arrived. At this instance, Rosita held when Jocelyn left her in Niu's house, at a distant place in
Nicole and cajoled her. Rosita asked Edwin if she could Tondo, Manila, unknown to her, she deprived Sweet of the
take Nicole with her to buy barbeque. Having been freedom to leave the house at will. It is not necessary that
acquainted with Rosita for a long time and because he the detention be prolonged.
trusted her, Edwin acceded. When Rosita and the child The intention to deprive Sweet's parents of her
left, Suriaga joined them. More than an one hour has custody is indicated by Jocelyn's hesitation for two days to
passed but the two failed to return with Nicole. Edwin, disclose Sweet's whereabouts and more so by her actual
Johnny and his wife, Mercedita, then began searching but taking of the child. Jocelyn's motive at this point is not
they could not find their daughter and Rosita. Nicole’s relevant. It is not an element of the crime.
grandfather then receive a call from Suriaga asking for
ransom in the amount of P100,000.00. Johnny immediately People v. Pavillare, 329 SCRA 684 (2000)
reported the call to the PACC Task Force. The next day,
Suriaga called Mercedita, introduced himself and asked her
FACTS: Sukhjinder Singh, an Indian national was on
if she and her husband would give the amount to which the
his way back to his parked motorcycle when three men
latter responded in the positive. Suriaga instructed
blocked his way. Pavillare, who was one of them, accused
Mercidita as to the how the money should be delivered to
Singh of having raped the woman inside a Kia taxi cab
him with a warning that if she will not deliver the money,
parked nearby. Singh denied the accusation, the three men
her daughter would be placed in a plastic bag or thrown in
nevertheless forced him inside the cab and brought him in
a garbage can. Thereafter, with the cash money, and while
Quezon City. One of the abductors took the key to his
being tailed by PACC agents, Mercida proceeded to deliver
motorcycle and drove it alongside the cab. Singh was
the money to Suriaga. The PACC agents arrested Suriaga
beaten up and P100,000.00 was demanded for his release.
and his companion Isidera after Mercida gave the money to
Singh told them that he only had P5,000.00 with him.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

97
Pavillare then forced him to give the phone numbers of his by the perpetrators is of no moment. In People vs.
relatives so they can make their demand from them. Singh Salimbago, the Court stressed:
gave the phone number of his cousin Lakhvir Singh and then “x x x No specific form of ransom is
Pavillare made the call. The amount of 25,000.00 was required to consummate the felony of
agreed upon. An uncle and his cousin Lakhvir arrived in a kidnapping for ransom so long as it was
motorcycle and together with the kidnappers they entered intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for
a mini-grocery. Later the kidnappers brought the the victim’s freedom. In municipal criminal
complainant to the mini-grocery where he met his law, ransom refers to the money, price or
relatives. The ransom money was handed to the appellant. consideration paid or demanded for redemption
He counted the money and then, together with his cohorts, of a captured person or persons, a payment
immediately left the scene. Pavillare argues that he should that releases from captivity. Neither actual
have been convicted of simple robbery and not kidnapping demand for nor actual payment of ransom is
with ransom because the evidence proves that the prime necessary for the crime to be committed.”
motive of the Pavillare and his companions is to obtain
money and that the complainant was detained only for two People v. Ejandra, 429 SCRA 364
hours:
FACTS: While Ed Henderson, the 9-year old son of
spouses Eddie and Marileen Tan was on his way back to the
HELD: The duration of the detention even if only for
house of his tutor in Chinese language to wait for his
a few hours does not alter the nature of the crime
father, accused Tampos, armed with a revolver, chased
committed. The crime of kidnapping is committed by
and overtook the boy. Tampos then ordered the boy to
depriving the victim of liberty whether he is placed in an
proceed to a motorcycle parked nearby where appellants
enclosure or simply restrained from going home. As
Ejandra and Revilla were waiting. Ejandra covered Ed
squarely expressed in Article 267 of the RPC the penalty of
Henderson's mouth with his hand, pointed his gun at the
death is imposable where the detention is committed for
boy and warned the latter not to shout. Thereafter,
the purpose of extorting ransom, and the duration of the
Tampos ordered Ed Henderson to board the motorcycle, or
detention is not material.
else, he would be shot. Ed was brought to a house where
one Huera, and Calunod was. Ed Henderson was ordered to
Ransom write down his father's telephone number, as well as that
People v. Castro, 385 SCRA 24 of their house and their store. Eddie then received a call
through his home phone, informing him that his son had
FACTS: Saez was informed by his siblings that been kidnapped. Several calls were made and a reduced
Castro called up to say that the latter wanted to speak with ransom of P548,000 for the safe release of Ed Henderson
Saez. After taking a quick shower, Saez repaired to was eventually agreed upon. Eddie was then instructed to
Castro’s residence. Just as Castro opened the gate for place the money in a newspaper and to bring the money to
Saez, Castro pointed and fired his 9 mm. handgun at Saez, the parking lot in front of a Church. Eddie did as he was
its bullet whizzing by his right ear. Saez was thrown told. He proceeded to the designated place. When Calunod
against the concrete wall of the house. He was then taken approached and called Eddie, the latter handed over the
inside the house. Reyes and Jde los Angeles, joined Castro plastic bag which contained the money. Eddie asked
in mauling Saez. Castro hit Saez with an iron club. At Calunod how his son was. Calunod told Eddie not to worry
around nine o’clock in the evening, Castro handed over to because the latter would bring the boy home. Calunod then
him a phone and ordered him to tell his family to raise walked to the gate of the church and went home to wait
twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos. Fifteen minutes for his son's return. Ed Henderson returned on board a taxi
later, Castro gave back the phone to Saez and told him to and was soon reunited with his waiting family. Ejandra,
instruct the person on the other line to bring the money to Calunod, Tampos and Revilla were convicted of kidnapping
a place near a hospital. About half an hour later, another for ransom and were sentenced to suffer the death
call was placed to follow-up the demand. Turning to de los penalty.
Angeles and Reyes, Castro instructed the two to go to the
“drop-off point.” Nobody showed up. After an hour, Saez HELD: Since all the foregoing facts indubitably
was ordered to call again, this time to designate another show that the appellants conspired to kidnap the victim for
place where the money was to be delivered. Castro told ransom, the Court affirmed the conviction of Ejandra,
Saez to have his relatives bring the money to the vicinity of Calunod, Tampos and Revilla of kidnapping for ransom.
the Aglipay Church in Caridad. Again, no meeting To warrant an imposition of the death penalty for
materialized. Around midnight, Castro, de los Angeles and the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for
Reyes left the house and stayed by the gate conversing ransom, the prosecution must prove the following beyond
with one another. The victim took the opportunity to flee. reasonable doubt: (a) intent on the part of the accused to
He was able to untie his legs and tackle the stairs towards deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of
the second storey. He jumped out through the window but the victim of his liberty; and, (c) motive of the accused,
the noise he created caught the attention of Castro. The which is ransom for the victim or other person for the
latter fired his gun, hitting the fleeing victim and planting release of the victim. The purpose of the offender in
a bullet in his buttocks. His plea for help alarmed some extorting ransom is a qualifying circumstance which may be
barangay officials who immediately came to his rescue and proven by his words and overt acts before, during and after
brought him to the nearest hospital the kidnapping and detention of the victim. Neither actual
demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for
HELD: The corpus delicti in the crime of the crime to be committed. Ransom, as employed in the
kidnapping for ransom is the fact that an individual has law, is so used in its common or ordinary sense; meaning, a
been in any manner deprived of his liberty for the purpose sum of money or other thing of value, price, or
of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person. consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a
Whether or not the ransom is actually paid to or received kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

98
from captivity. It may include benefits not necessarily  Privileged mitigating circumstance
pecuniary which may accrue to the kidnapper as a (penalty lower by one degree) – if the offender:
condition for the victim's release. n this case, the
o Voluntarily releases the
appellants not only demanded but also received ransom for
the release of the victim. The trial court correctly person so kidnapped or detained within
sentenced the appellants to death. three days from the commencement of the
detention;
Mandatory Imposition of Death Penalty o Without having attained
the purpose intended; and
People v. Morales, 427 SCRA 765 o Before the institution of
criminal proceedings against him.
FACTS: Jefferson Tan was with his siblings, Jessie
 Voluntary release is not a privileged
Anthony and Joanna Tan, his cousin, Malou and their
driver, Cesar on board the family L-300 van. Along the mitigating circumstance if the victim is woman,
highway, the vehicle slowed down to steer clear of a because the detention would then be punished
damaged portion of the road when Malit suddenly poked a under Article 267. Voluntary release is not
gun at Cesar. Simultaneously, Morales, Esguerra, and mitigating under that article.
Saldaña 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 Article 269. Unlawful arrest
was instructed to bring the ransom to a snack center.
Feliciano did not allow his son to bring the ransom and Elements:
explained to the kidnappers that Jefferson was in shock
and could not go. When asked about the ransom money, he 1. Offender arrests or detains another
told the caller that he could only give P92,000. The caller
person;
agreed. Later, at the place where the kidnappers
instructed Feliciano to go, the latter gave the money and 2. The purpose of the offender is to deliver
he was handed the keys to the L-300 van where his children him to the proper authorities;
are. 3. The arrest or detention is not authorized
by law or there is no reasonable ground therefor.
HELD: The elements of the crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention are the following: (a) the
 Unlawful arrests by public officers
accused is a private individual; (b) the accused kidnaps or
detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his should be punished under Article 124, if the
liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and public officer has the legal authority to arrest and
(d) in the commission of the offense, any of the four detain a person, but the arrest is without legal
circumstances mentioned in Article 267 of the Revised ground. If the public officer has no authority to
Penal Code are present. The imposition of the death arrest and detain a person, or if he did not act in
penalty is mandatory if the kidnapping was committed for
his official capacity, he should be punished for
the purpose of extorting ransom. In the instant case,
appellants cannot escape the penalty of death, inasmuch as unlawful arrest under this article. Compare with
it was sufficiently alleged and indubitably proven that the art. 267
kidnapping had been committed for the purpose of  The motive of the person arresting
extorting ransom. is controlling. If his purpose is to deliver to
proper authorities, this article applies.
Article 268. Slight illegal detention Absence of this motive may be shown by the
length of time the victim is detained.
Elements:  If the purpose of delivering to
proper authorities is not shown, the person may
1. Offender is a private individual; be liable for other illegal detention (under 267 or
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any 268, depending on the circumstances of the
other manner deprives him of his liberty. case)
3. The act of kidnapping or detention is
illegal; Unlawful arrest Delay of delivery of
4. The crime is committed without the detained persons
attendance of any of the circumstances The detention is not The detention is for some
enumerated in Article 267. authorized by law legal ground
Crime is committed by Crime is committed by failing
 The same penalty for slight illegal making an arrest not to deliver such persons to
authorized by law the proper judicial authority
detention shall be incurred by anyone who shall
within a certain period of
furnish the place for the perpetration of the time
crime. (normally, this is an accomplice but under
this article he is treated as co-principal) Bar Questions
Arbitrary Detention; Elements; Grounds (2006)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

99
1. What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary  When the crime is committed by
detention? Explain each. (2.5.%) the father or mother of the minor, the penalty is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 300 pesos
The 3 ways of arbitrary detention are:
or both.
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 Article 270 Article 267
Penal Code). Offender is entrusted with The offender is not
b) Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper the custody of the minor entrusted with the custody
judicial authorities which is committed by a public officer or of the minor
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 People vs. Ty
or offense punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
eighteen hours (18), for crimes or offenses punishable by A mother left her sick child in a clinic and only came back
correctional facilities, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) to claim the child five years later. Unfortunately, the
hours for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or doctors had already entrusted the child to a guardian.
capital penalties, or their equivalent (Art. 125, Revised Penal
Code). HELD: Two elements must concur in the crime of
c) Delaying release is committed by any public officer or kidnapping of a minor: (a) the offender had been entrusted
employee who delays the release for the period of time with the custody of the minor; and (b) the offender
specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive DELIBERATELY fails to restore said minor to his parents or
order for the release of the prisoner, or unduly delays the legal guardian. In the case at bar, it is evident that there
was no deliberate refusal or failure to return the minor as
service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the
it was proven that the doctors tried their best to locate the
proceedings upon any petition for
child, even seeking NBI’s assistance along the way.
the liberation of such person (Art. 126, Revised Penal Code).
2. What are the legal grounds for detention? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: People vs. Gutierrez (1991)
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other
ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient Lilia Gutierrez was convicted by the RTC of Manila of the
in a hospital shall be considered legal grounds for the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor and
detention of any person (Art. 124[2], Revised Penal Code). sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The minor was Hazel
3. When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private Elpedes, her 2 and a half-year-old nephew (yup, Hazel’s a
person considered lawful? Explain. (5%) guy in this story), whom Gutierrez allegedly sold to the
1. When the arrest by a peace officer is made pursuant to a spouses Felipe for P250 (Lilia claims she did it to spite her
valid warrant. husband, brother of Hazel’s mom, who had abandoned
2. A peace officer or a private person may, without a her).
warrant, arrest a person:
i. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has HELD: The offense of kidnapping and failure to return a
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to minor under Art. 270 of the RPC consists of 2 elements:
commit an offense,  the offender has been entrusted with
ii. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he the custody of a minor person, and
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to  the offender deliberately fails to
be arrested has committed it, and restore said minor to his parents or guardians.
iii. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from penal establishment or place where he is It is clear that Gutierrez admitted the existence of the first
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case element (she asked her in-laws for permission to take the
is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one boy out).
confinement to another (Sec. 5, Rule 113,1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure). The second element has likewise been established. In the
first place, Gutierrez's own conduct in leading the boy’s
father and police to the Felipe residence in Intramuros
Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a indicated her awareness of the probable whereabouts of
minor the child. The logical conclusion is that she must have been
the person responsible for originally leaving the child with
Elements: 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
1. Offender is entrusted with the custody of a for an indefinite period, is not an indispensable element of
minor person (whether over or under seven years the offense charged. All that was necessary for the
but less than 21 years of age); prosecution to prove was that she had deliberately failed
2. He deliberately fails to restore the said minor to return the minor to his parents.
to his parents or guardians.
People vs. Reyes (1996)
 What is punished is the deliberate
failure of the custodian of the minor to restore Delia Reyes, maid of the Mohamad spouses, was convicted
the latter to his parents or guardians. of kidnapping one of their daughters, Asnia. After spending

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

100
300-grand on a manhunt, Asnia was recovered a couple of were clearly established by the State, free of any scintilla
months later. Reyes claims that, while out with Asnia, she of doubt.
ran into her sister who informed her of their mom’s death;
Reyes then allegedly had a friend take Asnia home while People v. Pastrana, 387 SCRA 342
she (Reyes) and her sister went to La Union for their mom’s
wake (basically, she’s blaming somebody else). FACTS: Postejo, working as a domestic helper in
Canada, has four children namely, Jenny, Doroteo, Aresola,
HELD: Reyes's negligence is wanton and gross as to amount and 9-year old Willy. Erma was introduced by her sister to
to a deliberate and willful scheme to take the child away spouses Frias who informed her that their daughter,
from her parents. This willfulness is sufficiently established Pastrana can help process Willy's travel documents to
by the following circumstances: (1) appellant lured Asnia Canada. Erma agreed to hand the processing of her son's
and her sister into leaving their house; (2) she instructed papers. In one of the telephone conversations of Erma and
the two elder sisters to go home but kept the youngest Pastrana, the latter informed Erma that Willy was suffering
with her; (3) she and Asnia could not be located despite from acute bronchitis. Erna sent money for the medical
extensive search by the authorities and the widespread treatment of his son. Pastrana then fetched Willy and
publicity generated through the television, radio and print Aresola from their residence in Caloocan and brought them
media; (4) the child was found two months later and only to her apartment. Thought she never brought Willy to a
after the arrest of appellant; and (5) appellant harbored hospital for treatment, Pastrana kept on demanding money
ill-feelings against the Mohamads family (she admitted from Erma which include the amount of P60,000.00 for the
that, at one point, the Mohamads did not pay her salary for installation of a water purifier in her apartment allegedly
5 months when she worked for them in 1989). 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
People vs. Borromeo (2000) the return of Willy to their residence in Caloocan. Pastrana
deliberately failed to return Willy for 7 days until the latter
Borromeo alias "Sonny", a bakery helper of Rowena who had disappeared while allegedly playing in front of Pastrana’s
been discharged by her due to negative attitude problems, apartment.
kidnapped her 1-year and 7-months old son. The next day,
Sonny demanded a P300,000 ransom. He was convicted of HELD: Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
kidnapping a minor for ransom and was sentenced to death. under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code has two
essential elements, namely: (1) the offender is entrusted
HELD: There is no question that the elements of kidnapping with the custody of a minor person; and (2) the offender
for ransom were sufficiently established: (a) the accused is deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or
a private individual; (b) the accused kidnapped or detained guardians. What is actually being punished is not the
the victim and deprived him of his liberty; and, (c) the kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure of
deprivation of the victim's liberty was illegal. As provided the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his
for in Art. 267 of the RPC as amended, the imposition of parents or guardians. The word deliberate as used in
the death penalty is mandatory if the victim is a minor and Article 270 must imply something more than mere
also, if the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of negligence — it must be premeditated, headstrong,
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person. foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong. In
the case at bar, there is no question that accused-appellant
IN CAB, the minority of Kenneth was never disputed. The was entrusted with the custody of 9-year old Willy. Erma
minority and the demand for the payment of ransom, both and her children trusted accused-appellant that they sent
specifically described in the Information, were clearly her money for the processing of Willy's travel documents,
established by the State, free of any scintilla of doubt. and more importantly, they allowed Willy to stay in her
apartment. As to the second element, It was this
People v. Borromeo (2000) deliberate failure of accused-appellant to return custody of
Willy to his relatives that gave rise to her culpability under
FACTS: Borromeo alias "Sonny", a bakery helper Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code. The disappearance
of Rowena who had been discharged by her due to negative of Willy and accused-appellant's inability to return him to
attitude problems, kidnapped her 1-year and 7-months old Caloocan by reason thereof has no bearing on the crime
son. The next day, Sonny demanded a P300,000 ransom. He charged as it was her willful disobedience to Erma's order
was convicted of kidnapping a minor for ransom and was that consummated the crime.
sentenced to death.
People v. Bernardo, 378 SCRA 708
HELD: There is no question that the elements of
kidnapping for ransom were sufficiently established: (a) the FACTS: While Rosita was undergoing
accused is a private individual; (b) the accused kidnapped medical check up inside a hospital, her two daughters
or detained the victim and deprived him of his liberty; and, waited at the lobby. Roselle was seating on a bench with
(c) the deprivation of the victim's liberty was illegal. As her 15-day old sister on her lap. Bernardo befriended
provided for in Art. 267 of the RPC as amended, the Roselle and later gave her P3.00 and asked her to buy ice
imposition of the death penalty is mandatory if the victim water. Thereafter, Bernardo took the baby from Roselle.
is a minor and also, if the kidnapping was committed for Roselle was not able to find ice water for sale and on her
the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any way back to the hospital, she saw Bernardo running away
other person. with her baby sister. Roselle pulled and pulled Bernardo's
IN CAB, the minority of Kenneth was never skirt to prevent the latter from getting away. Torres saw
disputed. The minority and the demand for the payment of Bernardo carrying a child and struggling with Roselle.
ransom, both specifically described in the Information, Roselle begged Torres to help her because her mother was
at the hospital and the accused was getting her baby sister.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

101
Torres took the baby from the Bernardo and entrusted the their shack because he was running from the NBI. The trio
baby to his wife. Then he led Bernardo and Roselle to the then left in Mario's car for Manila where they called up
hospital to look for Rosita who confirmed that she was the Luke's family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they
mother of the baby. The RTC convicted Bernardo of the give a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them, because
crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio and
Article 270 of the RPC. TV. Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked,
especially when the announcer stated that there is a shoot-
HELD: The essential element of the crime of to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to
kidnapping and failure to return a minor is that the the seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they smashed his
offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor, but
head with a shovel and buried him in the sand. However,
what is actually being punished is not the kidnapping of the
they were seen by a barangay kagawad who arrested them
minor but rather the deliberate failure of the custodian of
and brought them to the police station. Upon interrogation,
the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.
they confessed and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and
Indeed, the word deliberate as used in Article 270 of the
Revised Penal Code must imply something more than mere Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4
negligence — it must be premeditated, headstrong, were arrested and charged. What crime or crimes did the 6
foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong. suspects commit? (5%)
When Roselle entrusted Roselyn to appellant before setting ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
out on an errand for appellant to look for ice water, the a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with
first element was accomplished and when appellant homicide. The original intention was to demand ransom from
refused to return the baby to Roselle despite her the family with the threat of killing. As a consequence of the
continuous pleas, the crime was effectively accomplished. kidnapping, however, Luke was killed. Thus, the victim was
In fine, we agree with the trial court's finding that deprived of his freedom and the subsequent killing, though
appellant is guilty of the crime of kidnapping and failure to committed by another person, was a consequence of the
return a minor. detention. Hence, this properly qualified the crime as the
special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999) homicide (People v. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554, October 1,
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%) 2003; Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as buried the latter in the sand committed murder qualified by
follows: in coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable
employment of violence or serious intimidation for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they
approximating violence, without authority of law, to prevent aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were
a person from doing something not prohibited by law or to informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal
compel him to do something against his will, whether it be Code).
right or wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the
is the actual restraint or locking up of a person, thereby criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act
depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian
was no intent to lock up or detain the offended party humility" does not constitute a crime.
unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not committed. Alternative Answer:
Kidnapping (2002) a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with
A and B were legally separated. Their child C, a minor, was ransom. After kidnapping Luke, they demanded ransom with
placed in the custody of A the mother, subject to monthly the threat of killing him. However, the killing of Luke is
visitations by B, his father. On one occasion, when B had C separate from the kidnapping having been committed by
in his company, B decided not to return C to his mother. other persons, who had nothing to do with the kidnapping,
Instead, B took C with him to the United States where he and who will be liable for a different crime (Penultimate par.
intended for them to reside permanently. What crime, if any, of Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
did B commit? Why? (5%) b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: buried the latter in the sand committed murder qualified by
B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable
minor under Article 271, in relation to Article 270, of the for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they
Revised Penal Code, as amended. Article 271 expressly aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were
penalizes any parent who shall take from and deliberately informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal
fail to restore his or her minor child to the parent or Code).
guardian to whom custody of the minor has been placed. c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the
Since the custody of C, the minor, has been given to the criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act
mother and B has only the right of monthly visitation, the of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian
latter's act of taking C to the United Slates, to reside there humility" does not constitute a crime.
permanently, constitutes a violation of said provisions of law. Kidnapping w/ Homicide (2005)
Kidnapping (2006) Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles factory of week old son of the spouses Martin and Pops Kuripot. When
Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and Paz learned that her 70 year-old mother was seriously ill, she
miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him and loaded him asked Martin for a cash advance of P1,000.00 but Martin
in a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they will only teach refused. One morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martin’s son
Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to a with stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with
fishpond in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil and masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in the
Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in afternoon, she demanded P5,000.00 as ransom for the
release of his son. Martin did not pay the ransom.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

102
Subsequently, Paz disappeared. After a couple of days, nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After
Martin discovered the box in the attic with his child already satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down
dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and
asphyxiation barely three minutes after the box was sealed. Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the
What crime or crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (5%) duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and
Paz committed the composite crime of kidnapping with Nonoy? (2.5%)
homicide under Art. 267, RFC as amended by R.A. No. 7659. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the law, any person who shall detain another or in Job and Nonoy committed 1) kidnapping and serious illegal
any manner deprive him of liberty and the victim dies as a detention with homicide and rape for the subsequent death
consequence is liable for kidnapping with homicide and shall of Dang, and 2) kidnapping with rape against her sister, Lyn.
be penalized with the maximum penalty. In this case, The victims, who were kidnapped and detained, were
notwithstanding the fact that the one-week old child was subsequently raped and killed (as regards Dang) in the
merely kept in the attic of his house, gagged with stockings course of their detention. The composite crime is committed
and placed in a box sealed with tape, the deprivation of regardless of whether the subsequent crimes were purposely
liberty and the intention to kill becomes apparent. Though it sought or merely an afterthought (People v. Larranaga, G.R.
may appear that the means employed by Paz was attended Nos. 138874-5, Februarys, 2004).
by treachery (killing of an infant), nevertheless, a separate ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
charge of murder will not be proper in view of the Job and Nonoy committed 2 counts of the complex crime of
amendment. Here, the term "homicide" is used in its generic forcible abduction with rape (Art. 342, Revised Penal Code)
sense and covers all forms of killing whether in the nature of and the separate offense of murder against Dang. The crime
murder or otherwise. It is of no moment that the evidence committed is abduction because there was lewd design when
shows the death of the child took place three minutes after they took the victims away and subsequently raped them.
the box was sealed and the demand for the ransom took The killing thereafter, constitutes the separate offense of
place in the afternoon. The intention is controlling here, that murder qualified by treachery.
is, ransom was demanded. 2. What penalties should be imposed on them?
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: (2.5%)
Murder qualified by treachery because the victim was only SUGGESTED ANSWER:
one week old. The offense was attended with the Since the death penalty has already been prohibited,
aggravating circumstance of lack of respect due to the age reclusion perpetua is the appropriate penalty (RA. 9346). In
of the victim, cruelty and abuse of confidence. In People v. the case of the minor Nonoy, his penalty shall be one degree
Lora (G.R. No, L-49430, March 30, 1982), the Court found lower (Art. 68, Revised Penal Code).
that a child subjected to similar treatment as the infant in 3. Will Nonoy's minority exculpate him? (2.5%)
this case would have died instantly, negating any intent to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
kidnap or detain when ransom was sought. Demand for Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act, which
ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping with retroacts to the date that the crime was committed, Nonoy
murder because the demand was merely a scheme by the will be exculpated if he was 15 years old or below. However,
offender (Paz) to conceal the body of her victim. if he was above 15 years old but below 18 years of age, he
Kidnapping; Effects; Voluntary Release (2004) will be liable if he acted with discernment. As the problem
DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the shows that Nonoy acted with discernment, he will be entitled
second day, DAN released CHU even before any criminal to a suspension of sentence.(NOTABENE: R.A. 9344 is
information was filed against him. At the trial of his case, outside the coverage of the examination)
DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal 4. Is the non-recovery of Lyn's body material to the
liability since he released the child before the lapse of the 3- criminal liability of Job and Nonoy? (2.5%)
day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping SUGGESTED ANSWER:
were instituted. Will DAN's defense prosper? Reason briefly. The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the
(5%) criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because the corpus delicti
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of the crime which is kidnapping with rape of Lyn has been
No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the duly proven.
offender of the offended party in kidnapping is not ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and immaterial The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the
in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because the corpus delicti
committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention under of the crime which is forcible abduction with rape of Lyn has
Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such circumstance been duly proven.
does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only Kidnapping; Proposal to Kidnap (1996)
in the crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 (Asistio v. Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of
San Diego, 10 SCRA 673 [1964]) money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so that he may
Kidnapping; Illegal Detention; Minority (2006) succeed to raping her and eventually making her accede to
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich marry him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo
classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently failed to put up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up
wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another the money he required, he reported Edgardo to the police.
man, rejected him. This angered Job, Sometime in May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping?
September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on Explain.
their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed SUGGESTED ANSWER:
them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping
them to an abandoned warehouse where they forced them inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap or restrain the liberty of
to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

103
done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the living separately and custody has been given to
girl, which is only a preparatory act and not an overt act. one of them.
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)
Article 272. Slavery
A and B conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and
detained him. The duo then called up C's wife informing her Elements:
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 1. Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains
were to fail, they would kill him. The next day, C, who had a human being;
just recovered from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he 2. The purpose of the offender is to enslave
might die if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B
such human being.
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  If the purpose of the offender is to
petition for bail. They contended that since they had assign the offended party to some immoral traffic
voluntarily released C within three days from (prostitution), the penalty is higher.
commencement of the detention, without having been paid  Differentiated from kidnapping: If
any amount of the ransom demanded and before the the purpose is to enslave the victim, the crime is
institution of criminal proceedings against them, the crime slavery; otherwise the crime is kidnapping or
committed was only slight illegal detention prescribed in
illegal detention.
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 Article 273. Exploitation of child labor
Illegal detention? Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Elements:
The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and serious
illegal detention because they made a demand for ransom 1. Offender retains a minor in his services;
and threatened to kill C if the latter's wife did not pay the
2. It is against the will of the minor;
same. Without the demand for ransom, the crime could have
been slight illegal detention only. The contention of A and B
3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing
that they had voluntary released C within three days from himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
the commencement of the detention is immaterial as they guardian or person entrusted with the custody of
are charged with a crime where the penalty prescribed is such minor.
death (Asistio vs. San Diego. 10SCRA673). They were
properly denied bail because the trial court found that the  The existence of an indebtedness
evidence of guilt in the information for kidnapping and constitutes no legal justification for holding a
serious Illegal detention is strong. person and depriving him of his freedom to live
where he wills.
Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his
home Article 274. Services rendered under
compulsion in payment of debt
Elements:
Elements:
1. A minor (whether over or under seven years
of age) is living in the home of his parents or 1. Offender compels a debtor to work for him,
guardians or the person entrusted with his either as household servant or farm laborer;
custody; 2. It is against the debtor’s will;
2. Offender induces said minor to abandon 3. The purpose is to require or enforce the
such home. payment of a debt.

 The inducement must be actual,

Service under Exploitation of child
committed with criminal intent, and determined compulsion labor
by a will to cause damage. Does not distinguish Victim must be a minor
 It is not necessary that the minor whether the victim is a
actually abandons his home, as long as there is minor or not
inducement. The debtor himself is the The minor is compelled to
 The minor should not leave his one compelled to work for render services for the
home of his own free will. the offender supposed debt of his parent
 Father or mother may commit this or guardian
crime (as well as Article 270), if the parents are Limited to household work Service is not limited
or farm labor

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

104
 1. Offender has the custody of a child;
2. The child is under seven years of age;
Article 275. Abandonment of persons in danger 3. He abandons such child;
and abandonment of one’s own victim 4. He has no intent to kill the child when
the latter is abandoned.
Acts punishable:
Circumstances qualifying the offense:
1. Failing to render assistance to any person
whom the offender finds in an uninhabited place 1. When the death of the minor resulted from
wounded or in danger of dying when he can such abandonment; or
render such assistance without detriment to 2. If the life of the minor was in danger
himself, unless such omission shall constitute a because of the abandonment.
more serious offense.
 When there is intent to kill, this
Elements: article does not apply. The purpose in
abandoning the minor must be to avoid the
a. The place is not inhabited; obligation of taking care of said minor.
b. Accused found there a person  The ruling that intent to kill is
wounded or in danger of dying; presumed from the death of the victim is
c. Accused can render assistance applicable only to crimes against persons, and
without detriment to himself; not to crimes against security, particularly the
d. Accused fails to render assistance. crime in this article.
 A permanent, conscious and
2. Failing to help or render assistance to deliberate abandonment is required in this article.
another whom the offender has accidentally There must be an interruption of the care and
wounded or injured; protection the minor needs by reason of his age.
3. By failing to deliver a child, under seven  Parents guilty of abandonment shall
years of age, whom the offender has found be deprived of their parental authority.
abandoned, to the authorities or to his family, or
by failing to take him to a safe place.
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by the
 If a person intentionally wounds person entrusted with his custody; indifference
another and leaves him in an uninhabited place, of parents
he shall not be liable under this article because
be did not FIND him wounded or in danger of Acts punishable:
dying.
 It is immaterial that the offender 1. Delivering a minor to a public institution or
did not know that the child is under seven years. other persons without the consent of the one
 The child under seven must be who entrusted such minor to the care of the
found by the accused in an unsafe place. offender or, in the absence of that one, without
the consent of the proper authorities;

Lamera vs. CA Elements:

An owner-type jeep driven by Lamera hit and bumped a
a. Offender has charge of the rearing
tricycle, damaging the said tricycle and injuring the driver
and passenger in the process. Two separate informations or education of a minor;
were filed, one for reckless imprudence resulting in b. He delivers said minor to a public
damage to property and multiple physical injuries and institution or other persons;
another one for abandonment of one’s victim. c. The one who entrusted such child
to the offender has not consented to such
HELD: The rule on double jeopardy cannot be applied in
act; or if the one who entrusted such child to
this case because the two informations were for separate
offenses— the first falls under quasi-offenses while the the offender is absent, the proper authorities
second is a crime against security. have not consented to it.

Article 276. Abandoning a minor 2. Neglecting his (offender’s) children by not

giving them the education which their station in
Elements: life requires and financial condition permits.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

105
 Elements: vagrant or beggar, the offender being any
person.
a. Offender is a parent;
b. He neglects his children by not giving them Exploitation of minors Inducing a minor to
education; (par. 5) abandon his home
c. His station in life requires such education Purpose of inducing minor is No such purpose
and his financial condition permits it. to abandon home is to
follow any person engaged
in any of the callings of
Article 276 Article 277
being an acrobat, gymnast,
The custody of the offender The custody of the offender etc.
is stated in general is specific, that is, the Minor under 16 years of age Minor under 21 years of age
custody for the rearing or
education of the minor
The minor is under 7 years The minor is under 21 years  If the delivery of the child to any
of age of age person following any of the callings enumerated,
Minor is abandoned in such The minor is delivered to a is made in consideration of any price,
as way as to deprive him of public institution or other compensation or promise, the penalty is higher.
the care and protection that person  The offender shall be deprived of
his tender years need parental authority or guardianship.
 Exploitation of minors refers to acts
 Obligation to educate children endangering the life or safety of the minor.
terminates, if the mother and children refuse
without good reason to live with the accused.
R.A. 7610
 Failure to give education must be Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
due to deliberate desire to evade such obligation. Exploitation and Discrimination Act
If the parents cannot give education because
they had no means to do so, then they will not A. CHILD PROSTITUTION
be liable under this article.
Who are “children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse”?
Article 278. Exploitation of minors
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or
Acts punishable: 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
1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 years of exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
age to perform any dangerous feat of balancing,
physical strength or contortion, the offender Who are punishable?
being any person;
2. Employing children under 16 years of age 1. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce
who are not the children or descendants of the child prostitution, which include, but are not limited to, the
offender in exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope- following:
a. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
walker, diver, or wild-animal tamer, the offender
b. Inducing a person to be a client of a child
being an acrobat, etc., or circus manager or prostitute by means of written or oral
engaged in a similar calling; advertisements or other similar means;
3. Employing any descendant under 12 years of c. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to
age in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in the procure a child as prostitute;
next preceding paragraph, the offender being d. Threatening or using violence towards a child to
engaged in any of the said callings; engage him as a prostitute; or
4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age e. Giving monetary consideration, goods or other
gratuitously to any person following any of the pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage
such child in prostitution.
callings enumerated in paragraph 2, or to any
habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender being an 2. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
in any capacity with the care of such child; and subject to other sexual abuse;
5. Inducing any child under 16 years of age to - If the victim is under 12, the perpetrators shall be
abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians, prosecuted for rape and or lascivious conduct
curators or teachers to follow any person under the RPC as the case may be
engaged in any of the callings mentioned in - However, the penalty for lascivious conduct when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall
paragraph 2 or to accompany any habitual
be higher (reclusion temporal in its medium

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

106
 period)
Who are punishable?
3. Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom,
whether as manager or owner of the establishment where Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce
the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, or coerce a child to perform in obscene exhibitions and
resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a indecent shows, whether live or in video, or model in
cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the obscene publications or pornographic materials or to sell or
activity for which the license has been issued to said distribute the said materials.
establishment.
D. OTHER PERSONS PUNISHABLE UNDER THE ACT
When is there attempt to commit child prostitution?
1. Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals of other conditions prejudicial to the child's development
an attempt to commit the crime of child prostitution, including those covered by Article 59 of PD 603 (criminal
committed as follows: liability of parents due to abandonment, neglect etc.), but
not covered by the RPC;
1. Attempt of (1) above  When any person who, not being
a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child 2. Any person who shall keep or have in his company a
inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, minor, twelve (12) years or under or who is ten (10) years
pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments, or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel,
vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house,
circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort
believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution or similar places UNLESS s/he is related to the minor within
and other sexual abuse; or the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond
recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the
2. Attempt of (2) above  When any person is receiving performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage
clinic, health club and other similar establishments. 3. Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor
to any one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his
B. CHILD TRAFFICKING company a minor as provided in the preceding paragraph;

What is child trafficking? 4. Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the
operation of any public or private place of accommodation,
Child trafficking is committed by a person trading and whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including
dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of residential places, who allows any person to take along
buying and selling of a child for money, or for any other with him to such place or places any minor herein described;
consideration, or barter.
5. Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate
When is there attempt to commit child trafficking? a street child or any other child to;
- Beg or use begging as a means of living;
(An attempt is punishable by a penalty two degrees lower - Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or
than the penalty for the consummated offense) pushing;
- Conduct any illegal activities
There is an attempt to commit child trafficking:
E. WORKING CHILDREN
1. When a child travels alone to a foreign country without
valid reason therefor and without clearance issued by the Who are punishable?
Department of Social Welfare and Development or written
permit or justification from the child's parents or legal Any person who shall violate any of the provision of the Act
guardian; with respect to working children (conditions for the
employment of children under 15, prohibitions on the
2. When a person, agency, establishment or child-caring employment of children for certain advertisements etc.)
institution recruits women or couples to bear a children for
the purpose of child trafficking; F. CHILDREN OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES
3. When doctor, hospital or clinic official or employee, nurse,
midwife, local civil registrar or any other person simulates Who are punishable?
birth for the purpose of child trafficking;
Any person who discriminates against children of indigenous
4. When a person engages in the act of finding children cultural communities
among low-income families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-
care centers, or other child-during institutions who can be COMMON PENAL PROVISIONS
offered for the purpose of child trafficking.
1. The penalty provided under this Act shall be imposed in
C. OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND INDECENT SHOWS its maximum period if the offender has been previously

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

107
 The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA
convicted under this Act;
7610 that must be proven in addition to the
elements of acts of lasciviousness are as follows: 
2. When the offender is a corporation, partnership or
association, the officer or employee thereof who is 1.  The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or
responsible for the violation of this Act shall suffer the lascivious conduct. 
penalty imposed in its maximum period; 2.  The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. 
3. The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its 3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of
maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, age.  
parent guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the
second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or “Lascivious conduct” is defined under Section 2 (h) of the
owner of an establishment which has no license to operate rules and regulations of RA 7610 as:
or its license has expired or has been revoked;
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or
4. When the offender is a foreigner, he shall be deported through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
immediately after service of sentence and forever barred groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or
from entry to the country; the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
5. The penalty provided for in this Act shall be imposed in its whether of the same or opposite sex, with
maximum period if the offender is a public officer or an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
employee, together with the penalty of disqualification or degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
suspension depending on the penalty imposed; desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the
6. A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and genitals or pubic area of a person.
administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development and disbursed for the Bar Questions
rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member RA 7610 – Child Exploitation (2006)
of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense. 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
People v. Delantar (2007) pay him within 2 months. Two months lapsed but Aling
Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling
Appellant’s violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of R.A. No. 7610 is as Maria that she does not have to pay the loan if she will allow
clear as day. The provision penalizes anyone who engages her youngest 10-year old daughter Annie to work as a
in or promotes, facilitates or induces child prostitution housemaid in his house for 2 months at Pl,000.00 a month.
either by: (1) acting as a procurer of a child prostitute; Despite Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan insisted and
or (2) inducing a person to be a client of a child
brought Annie to his house to work as a maid. 1. Was a
prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements
crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought Annie to
or other similar means; or (3) by taking advantage of
his house as maid for the purpose of repaying her mother's
influence or relationship to procure a child as a
loan? (2.5%)
prostitute; or (4) threatening or using violence towards
a child to engage him as a prostitute; or (5) giving SUGGESTED ANSWER:
monetary consideration, goods or other pecuniary Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of
benefits to the child with the intent to engage such child labor which is committed by any persons who under
child in prostitution. the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an
  ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of
The purpose of the law is to provide special protection to a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his
children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, service (Art. 273, Revised Penal Code). He can also be liable
exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions as an employer for the employment of a minor below 15 yrs.
prejudicial to their development. A child exploited in old, under Sec. 12, Art. 8 of RA. 7610.
prostitution may seem to “consent” to what is being done 2. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a housemaid
to her or him and may appear not to complain. However, in Mang Juan's household to pay her loan, did he commit a
we have held that a child who is “a person below eighteen crime? (2.5%)
years of age or those unable to fully take care of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of involuntary
cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of their age servitude for rendering services under compulsion and
or mental disability or condition” is incapable of giving payment of debts. This is committed by any person who, in
rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall
In fact, the absence of free consent is conclusively compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as
presumed when the woman is below the age of twelve household servant or farm laborer (Art. 274, Revised Penal
Code)
Navarrete v. People (2007)
Article 279. Additional penalties for other
offenses

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

108
 The imposition of the penalties
prescribed in the preceding articles shall not  Purpose of the law: to protect and preserve the
prevent the imposition upon the same person of privacy of one’s dwelling
the penalty provided for any other felonies  If the offender is a public officer or employee,
defined and punished by the RPC. the entrance into the dwelling against the will of
the occupant is violation of domicile.
 Dwelling – place devoted for rest and comfort, as
Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling distinguished from places devoted to business,
office etc.
Elements:  Dwelling includes a room when occupied by
1. Offender is a private person; another person (example: room at a boarding
2. He enters the dwelling of another; house)
3. Such entrance is against the latter’s will.  Against the will – should be against the
presumed or express prohibition of the occupant,
Cases to which the provisions of this article is not not mere lack of consent. There must be
applicable: opposition on the part of the owner of the house
to the entry of the accused.
1. When the purpose of the entrance is to  However, presumed or implied prohibition is
prevent serious harm to himself, the occupant or sufficient (e.g. entrance during the late hour of
third persons; the night)
2. When the purpose of the offender in  Prohibition must be existent prior to or at the
entering is to render some service to humanity or time of entrance.
justice;  QUALIFIED TRESPASS: If the offense is
3. Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns committed by means of violence or intimidation,
and other public houses while they are open. the penalty is higher.
 Violence may be against persons or property, but
Marzalado v. People, 441 SCRA 595 (2004) there are conflicting views as to this statement.
 The violence or intimidation may take place
FACTS: The petitioner, Marzalado, argues that
the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in
immediately after the entrance.
sustaining the lower court, since in the proceedings below,  Proof of express prohibition to enter is not
there was a grave misapprehension of facts by both the necessary when violence or intimidation is
MeTC and RTC in finding that he committed trespass to employed by the offender.
dwelling despite the glaring proof that his entry was  If there is no overt act of the crime intended to
justifiable under paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised be committed, the crime is only trespass to
Penal Code— to prevent an imminent danger to property.
He stresses that while he did enter the unit, he did so with
dwelling.
the aid of barangay officers and for the sole purpose of
turning off the faucet that was causing the flooding of the
unit. Article 281. Other forms of trespass

HELD: In the prosecution for trespass, the Elements:

material fact or circumstance to be considered is the
occurrence of the trespass. The gravamen of the crime is
violation of possession or the fact of having caused injury 1. Offender enters the closed premises or the
to the right of the possession. fenced estate of another;
As certified by Barangay Lupon Secretary Ragaya, 2. The entrance is made while either of them is
the unit rented by Albano was "forcibly opened by the uninhabited;
owner (Marzalado) because of the strong water pressure 3. The prohibition to enter is manifest;
coming out of the faucet. . . ." As Albano herself admitted,
she and her children already left the unit when the
4. The trespasser has not secured the
electricity supply was cut off in the month of September. permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
Hence, nobody was left to attend to the unit, except
during some nights when Albano's maid slept in the unit.  Premises signifies a distinct and
Clearly, Marzalado, acted for the justified purpose of definite locality. This may include a room, shop,
avoiding further flooding and damage to his mother's building or definite area.
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 Trespass to dwelling Other forms of trespass
addressed to avoid damage to the leased unit. There is The offender is a private The offender is any person
nothing culpable concerning Marzalado’s, judgment call to person
enter the unit and turn off the faucet instead of closing the The offender enters a The offender enters a closed
inlet valve as suggested by the OSG. dwelling house premises or a fenced estate
The place entered is The place entered is
inhabited uninhabited

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

109
The act constituting the The act constituting the c. There is a demand for
crime is entering against the crime is entering without money or that any other condition is
will of the owner securing the permission of imposed, even though not unlawful;
the owner or caretaker
d. The offender attains his
Prohibition to enter is Prohibition to enter must be
purpose.
express or implied manifest

2. Making such threat without the offender

Bar Questions
Trespass to Dwelling; Private Persons (2006) attaining his purpose;
Under what situations may a private person enter any 3. Threatening another with the infliction upon
dwelling, residence, or other establishments without being his person, honor or property or that of his family
liable for trespass to dwelling? (2.5%) of any wrong amounting to a crime, the threat
SUGGESTED ANSWER: not being subject to a condition.
Trespass to dwelling is not applicable to any person who
shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of: a)  The essence of the crime of threats
Preventing some serious harm to himself, its occupants, or a
is intimidation; i.e. the promise of some future
third person; and b) Rendering service to humanity or
justice; Any person who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns, and harm or injury.
other public houses, while the same are open will likewise  Not necessary that the wrong
not be liable (Art. 280, Revised Penal Code). threatened to be inflicted must amount to any of
Tresspass to Dwelling; Rule of Absorption (1994) the crimes against persons, honor or property.
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside Law requires that the wrong must be UPON the
the house of Mamerto. Jay. Mamerto's son, saw Dante and person, honor or property.
accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his  As the crime consists in threatening
abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of
another with some future harm, it is not
his room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted
Mamerto. Jay suffered Injuries which, were it not for the necessary that the offended party was present at
timely medical attendance, would have caused his death. the time the threats were made. It is sufficient
Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25 that the threats, came to the knowledge of the
days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit? offended party.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:  The crime of grave threats is
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated consummated as soon as the threats come to the
homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical knowledge of the person threatened.
injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
 Threats made in connection with
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be
complexed with frustrated homicide because when the the commission of other crimes are absorbed by
trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious the latter.
offense, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater  The offender in grave threats does
crime, and the former constitutes an aggravating not demand the delivery on the spot of the
circumstance of dwelling (People vs. Abedoza, 53 Phil.788). money or other personal property demanded by
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of him. When threats are made and money is taken
Jay.... Dante is guilty of less serious physical injuries for the on the spot, the crime may be robbery with
wounds sustained by Mamerto...
intimidation.
 The penalties for the first two types
Article 282. Grave threats
of grave threats depend upon the penalties for
the crimes threatened to be committed. One
Acts punishable:
degree lower if the purpose is attained, and two
degrees lower if the purpose is not attained.
1. Threatening another with the infliction upon
 If the threat is not subject to a
his person, honor or property or that of this
condition, the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor
family of any wrong amounting to a crime and
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
demanding money or imposing any other
 In the first two types, if the threat
condition, even though not unlawful, and the
is made in writing or thorough a middleman, the
offender attained his purpose;
penalty is to be imposed in its maximum period.
 The third type of grave threats
Elements:
must be serious and deliberate; the offender
must persist in the idea involved in his threats.
a. The offender threatens
The threat should not be made in the heat of
another person with the infliction upon the
anger, because such is punished under Article
latter’s person, honor or property, or upon
285.
that of the latter’s family, of any wrong;
 If the condition is not proved, it is
b. Such wrong amounts to
grave threats of the third type.
a crime;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

110
 If offender fails to give bail, If the offender fails to give
People vs. Timbol he shall be sentenced to bond, he shall be detained
destierro for a period not exceeding 6
The accused made several advances towards the offended months (if prosecuted for
party. He threatened to kill the woman’s husband if she grave/less grave felony) or
did not accede to his advances. He was convicted of acts not exceeding 30 days (light
of lasciviousness and grave threats. felony)
NOT a distinct penalty A distinct penalty
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. Article 285. Other light threats

Acts punishable:
Reyes vs. People
1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by
A disgruntled employee staged a demonstration in front of
the house of the guy who dismissed him from work. drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in
Phrases of this nature were spoken out loud: “Agustin, lawful self-defense;
putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin, lumabas 2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of
ka, papatayin kita!” anger, with some harm constituting a crime,
without persisting in the idea involved in his
HELD: All the elements of the crime of grave threats as
threat;
defined in Article 282 paragraph 2 are present: (1) the
offender threatened another person with the infliction 3. Orally threatening to do another any harm
upon his person of a wrong; (2) the wrong amounted to a not constituting a felony.
crime and (3) the threat was not subject to a condition.
 Under the first type, the
subsequent acts of the offender must show that
Article 283. Light threats he did not persist in the idea involved in his
threat.
Elements:  Threats which are ordinarily grave
threats, if made in the heat of anger, may be
1. Offender makes a threat to commit a other light threats.
wrong;  If the threats are directed to a
2. The wrong does not constitute a crime; person who is absent and uttered in a temporary
3. There is a demand for money or that fit of anger, the offense is only other light
other condition is imposed, even though not threats.
unlawful;
4. Offender has attained his purpose or, Other light threats Grave threats
that he has not attained his purpose. (second type) (third type)
Harm threatened to be committed is a crime
 Light threats are committed in the Threat is not deliberate Threat is deliberate
same manner as grave threats, except that the (made in the heat of anger)
act threatened to be committed should not be a
crime. Other light threats Light threats
(third type)
 Blackmailing may be punished
Harm threatened to be committed is not a crime
under this article.
There is NO demand for There is demand for money,
money, or other condition or other condition imposed
imposed
Article 284. Bond for good behavior

In what cases may a person be required to give bail Article 286. Grave coercions
not to molest another?
Acts punishable:
1. When he threatens another under Article
282. 1. Preventing another, by means of violence,
2. When he threatens another under Article threats or intimidation, from doing something not
283. prohibited by law;
2. Compelling another, by means of violence,
Bond for good behavior Bond to keep the peace threats or intimidation, to do something against
Applicable only to grave Not made applicable to any his will, whether it be right or wrong.
threats and light threats particular case

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

111
Elements o Kidnapping a debtor to
compel him to pay his debt (kidnapping for
1. A person prevented another from doing ransom under Art. 267)
something not prohibited by law, or that he  The crime is not grave coercion
compelled him to do something against his will; when the violence is employed to seize anything
be it right or wrong; not belonging to the debtor of the offender. This
2. The prevention or compulsion be effected by is light coercion under Article 287.
violence, threats or intimidation; and  Surrounding the victim in a
3. The person that restrained the will and notoriously threatening attitude is sufficient to
liberty of another had not the authority of law or constitute intimidation.
the right to do so, or in other words, that the  The force or violence must be
restraint shall not be made under authority of law immediate, actual or imminent.
or in the exercise of any lawful right.  The owner of a thing has no right
to prevent interference with it when interference
 The purpose of the law in is necessary to avert greater damage.
penalizing coercion and unjust vexation is to  There is no grave coercion when
enforce the principle that no person may take the the accused acts in good faith in the performance
law into his hands, and that our government is of duty.
one of law, not of men.  Coercion is consummated even if
 In grave coercion, the act of the offended party did not accede to the purpose
preventing by force must be made at the time of the coercion. (MEL – this is doubtful, please
the offended party was doing or about to do the check)
act to be prevented. If the act was already done  A higher penalty (prision mayor) is
when violence is exerted, the crime is unjust imposed if the coercion is committed:
vexation. o In violation of the
 Instances when the act of exercise of the right of suffrage;
preventing another is classified as another crime: o To compel another to
o A public officer perform any religious act.
preventing by means of violence or threats
the ceremonies or manifestations of any
religion is guilty of interruption of religious Grave coercion Illegal Detention
worship (Art. 132) There is no clear deprivation There must be actual
o Any person who, by of liberty confinement or restraint on
force, prevents the meeting of a legislative the person of the victim
body (Art. 143)
o Any person who shall Grave coercion Maltreatment of prisoner
(compelling a person to
use force or intimidation to prevent any
confess/give info)
member of Congress from attending the
The offended party is NOT a The offended party is a
meetings thereof, expressing his opinions, or prisoner prisoner
casting his vote (Art. 145)
 Compelling another to do
something includes the offender’s act of doing it Timoner vs. People (1983)
himself while subjecting another to his will.
 A person who is in actual Jose Timoner, the mayor of Daet, ordered the fencing off
possession of a thing, even if he has no right to of stalls which protruded into the sidewalks of Maharlika
highway. The stalls were recommended for closure by the
that possession, cannot be compelled by means
Municipal Health Officer.
of violence to give up the possession, even by
the owner himself. This will amount to grave HELD: There is no grave coercion when the restraint was
coercion. made under authority of law or in the lawful exercise of a
 Note however that an owner and right. Mayor Timoner had the authority under the Civil
actual possessor a property has a right to use Code to abate public nuisances. Also, he was merely
implementing the orders of the municipal health officer
such force was may be reasonably necessary to
and was acting under the authority of a previous decision
prevent another from dispossessing him of his which declared one of the stalls as a public nuisance.
property.
 Instances when the act of
compelling is another offense: Lee vs. CA (1991)
o A public officer not
Francis Lee, the branch manager of Pacific Banking
authorized by law who compels a person to Corporation, threatened to file charges against
change his residence (Art. 127) complainant de Chin, unless she returned all the money

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

112
equivalent to a forged Midland National Bank cheque which HELD: The circumstances that have surfaced
de Chin deposited in an account in the Pacific Bank. warrant a conviction for grave coercion. Grave coercion is
committed when a person prevents another from doing
HELD: To determine the degree of the intimidation, the something not prohibited by law or compelling him to do
age, sex and condition of the person shall be borne in something against his will, whether it be right or wrong,
mind. De Chin was pregnant, but she was also educated and without any authority of law, by means of violence,
and familiar with banking procedures. She could not have threats or intimidation. Its elements are — First, that the
been easily intimidated by Lee. Besides, a threat to offender has prevented another from doing something not
enforce one’s claim through competent authority, if the prohibited by law, or that he has compelled him to do
claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent. Lee’s something against his will, be it right or wrong; second,
threat is not improper because there is nothing unlawful that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence,
about the threat to sue. Finally, there is a difference either by material force or such display of force as would
between performing an act reluctantly, even against one’s produce intimidation and control over the will of the
good sense and judgment versus performing an act with no offended party; and, third, that the offender who has
consent at all, such as when a person acts against her will restrained the will and liberty of another did so without
or under a pressure cannot resist. In this case, de Chin any right or authority of law. Where there is a variance
consented to signing the withdrawal slips. She did so between the offense charged in the complaint or
voluntarily, although reluctantly. Hence, there is no information and that proved and the offense charged
coercion. necessarily includes the lesser offense established in
evidence, the accused can be convicted of the offense
proved.
People vs. Alfeche, Jr. (1992)

Complaint for Usurpation of Real Rights in Property

Article 287. Light coercions
(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 Elements:
kill them if the latter resisted. This was filed in the RTC.
RTC dismissed saying that the penalty under Art312 was 1. Offender must be a creditor;
below the jurisdictional amount of the RTC therefore it had 2. He seizes anything belonging to his
no jurisdiction on the assumption that the grave coercion
debtor:
was absorbed with the usurpation.
3. The seizure of the thing be
HELD: RTC had jurisdiction. Art312 defines a single, accomplished by means of violence or a display
special and indivisible crime with a 2-tiered penalty. The of material force producing intimidation;
principal one for the usurpation with violence/ intimidation 4. The purpose of the offender is to apply
and an incremental penalty based on the value obtained in the same to the payment of the debt.
addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence
and intimidation.
 The seized property must be
When the usurpation is done with violence or intimidation applied to the PAYMENT of the debt, not merely
(in the CAB, grave coercion), the accused must be as SECURITY for the debt.
prosecuted under Art312 for usurpation and not for the acts  Taking possession of the thing
of violence or intimidation under Art286 for grave coercion. belonging to the debtor, through deceit and
But whenever appropriate, accused may be held liable for
misrepresentation, for the purpose of applying
the separate acts of violence or intimidation (e.g. grave
coercion). This separate penalty is in addition to the fine the same to the payment of the debt, is unjust
based on the gain obtained by him. vexation under the second paragraph of this
article.
People v. Santos, 378 SCRA 157 (2002)  Actual physical violence not
necessary, grave intimidation is sufficient.
FACTS: Josephine gave a 1-year loan to Leonida
but the latter was unable to timely pay the debt. For the
Unjust vexation (other light coercion, second
next 4 years, Josephine was unsuccessful in securing
payment from Leonida as the latter stubbornly maintained paragraph)
her having already settled the account. Josephine, Manny
et. al., with the assistance of CIS agents, then brought  Includes any human conduct which,
Leonida to Baguio City from her house in Pangasinan, in although not productive of some physical or
order to surrender her to the custody of Baguio City material harm, would, however, unjustly annoy
authorities where Josephine thought she could rightly seek
or vex an innocent person. The act must cause
redress. She was advised, however, that it was in the
province of Pangasinan, not Baguio City, where a case annoyance, irritation, vexation, torment, distress
could be lodged. The trial court convicted Josephine on or disturbance.
the ground that the deprivation of Leonida of her liberty,  There is no violence or intimidation
regardless of its purpose and although lasting for less than in unjust vexation.
twenty-four hours, was sufficient to support the charge of  Examples: kissing a girl (despite
kidnapping.
her objections, of course!)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

113
 When the first and third elements Article 288. Other similar coercions
of grave coercion are present, but the second (compulsory purchase of merchandise and
element (violence, threats or intimidation) is payment of wages by means of tokens)
absent, the crime is unjust vexation.
Acts punishable:

People vs. Reyes (1934) 1. Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly,

or knowingly permitting the forcing or compelling
During a pabasa, the appellants started to construct a
of the laborer or employee of the offender to
barbed wire fence in front of the chapel. The noise
disrupted the ceremonies and some of the participants purchase merchandise of commodities of any
even fled, fearing trouble. The appellants were convicted kind from him;
of Offending Religious Feelings under Art. 133.
Elements:
HELD: The construction of a fence even though irritating
and vexatious under the circumstances to those present is
a. Offender is any person, agent or
not such an act as can be designated as “notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” The appellants’ officer of any association or corporation;
act was innocent and was simply to protect private b. He or such firm or corporation has
property rights. The circumstances under which the fence employed laborers or employees;
was constructed – late at night, vexing and annoying those c. He forces or compels, directly or
who had gathered – indicate that the crime committed was indirectly, or knowingly permits to be forced
only unjust vexation.
or compelled, any of his or its laborers or
employees to purchase merchandise or
People vs. Anonuevo (1937) commodities of any kind from him or from
said firm or corporation.
Teodulo Anonuevo embraced and kissed Rosita Tabia and
held her breasts while in church. He was convicted of 2. Paying the wages due his laborer or
abuse against chastity.
employee by means of tokens or object other
HELD: It is error to ascribe the conduct of appellant to than the legal tender currency of the Philippines,
lustful designs or purposes in the absence of clear proof as unless expressly requested by such laborer or
to his motive. The religious atmosphere and the presence employee.
of many people belie the fact that he acted with lewd
designs. He either performed a bravado (in defiance of Elements:
alleged threats of Rosita’s boyfriend) or wished merely to
force Rosita to accept him as a lover. He is only guilty of
unjust vexation. a. Offender pays the wages due a
laborer or employee employed by him by
Ong Chiu Kwan v. CA, 345 SCRA 586 (2000) means of tokens or object;
b. Those tokens or objects are other
Ong Chiu Kwan admitted having ordered the than the legal tender currency of the
cutting of the electric, water and telephone lines of Philippines;
complainant's business establishment because these lines c. Such employee or laborer does not
crossed his property line. He failed, however, to show expressly request that he be paid by means
evidence that he had the necessary permits or
of tokens or objects.
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  As a general rule,
complainant. Thus, petitioner's act unjustly annoyed or laborers and employees have the right to receive
vexed the complainant. Consequently, petitioner Ong Chiu just wages in legal tender.
Kwan is liable for unjust vexation.  Inducing an employee to
give up part of his wages by force, stealth,
Baleros v. People (2007) intimidation, threat or by any other means is not
punished under the RPC, but under Article 116 of
The court wishes to stress that malice, compulsion or the Labor Code.
restraint need not be alleged in an Information for unjust
vexation.  Unjust vexation exists even without the element Bar Questions
of restraint or compulsion for the reason that the term is Grave Coercion (1998)
broad enough to include any human conduct which, Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy
although not productive of some physical or material wearing the said necklace. Isagani asked Roy to return to
harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent him the necklace as it belongs to him, but Roy refused.
person.
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,

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

114
What offense did Isagani commit? (5%) 2. The purpose is to organize, maintain or
SUGGESTED ANSWER: prevent coalitions of capital or labor, strike of
Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286, laborers or lockout of employers.
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
 The act should not be a more
approximating violence constitute grave coercion, not grave serious offense under the RPC. For example, if
threats. Such is the nature of the threat in this case because death or other serious physical injuries are
it was committed with a gun, is a deadly weapon. caused, the act should be punished as such and
The crime is not robbery because intent to gain, which is an not under this Article.
essential element of robbery, is absent since the necklace  Peaceful picketing is not prohibited,
belongs to Isagani. it is a valid exercise of freedom of speech.
Grave Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner (1999)
 Employing violence or making
Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person was
tortured and maltreated by agents of the law in order to
threat by picketers may make them liable for
compel him to confess a crime imputed to him. The agents coercion.
failed, however, to draw from him a confession which was  Preventing employees from joining
their intention to obtain through the employment of such any registered labor organization is punished
means. What crime was committed by the agents of the under the Labor Code, not under the RPC.
law? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the agents
Article 290. Discovering secrets through
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,
seizure of correspondence
the crime is maltreatment of prisoner and the fact that the
suspect was subjected to torture to extort a confession Elements:
would bring about a higher penalty. In addition to the
offender's liability for the physical injuries inflicted. But if the 1. Offender is a private individual or even a
suspect was forcibly brought to the police headquarters to public officer not in the exercise of his official
make him admit the crime and tortured/ maltreated to make function;
him confess to such crime, but later released because the
2. He seizes the papers or letters of another;
agents failed to draw such confession, the crime is grave
coercion because of the violence employed to compel such
3. The purpose is to discover the secrets of
confession without the offended party being confined in jail. such another person;
(US vs. Cusi, 10 Phil 143) 4. Offender is informed of the contents of the
It is noted that the offended party was merely "brought" to papers or letters seized.
the police headquarters and is thus not a detention prisoner.
Had he been validly arrested, the crime committed would be  To seize means to place in the
maltreatment of prisoners. control of someone a thing or to give him the
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)
possession thereof. It is not necessary that there
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
be force or violence.
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as  Prejudice is not an element of the
follows: in coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the offense.
employment of violence or serious intimidation  When the offender reveals the
approximating violence, without authority of law, to prevent contents of such paper or letters of another to a
a person from doing something not prohibited by law or to third person, the penalty is higher. Thus,
compel him to do something against his will, whether it be revealing the secret is not an element of the
right or wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability
offense, it only qualifies the offense.
is the actual restraint or locking up of a person, thereby
depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there
 This article is not applicable to:
was no intent to lock up or detain the offended party o parents, guardians or
unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not committed. persons entrusted with the custody of
minors with respect to papers or letters of
Article 289. Formation, maintenance, and the children or minors placed under their
prohibition of combination of capital or labor care or custody;
through violence or threats o spouses with respect to
the papers or letters of either of them.
Elements:  Unlawful opening of mail matter by
an officer or employee of the Bureau of Posts is
1. Offender employs violence or threats, in punished under the Administrative Code.
such a degree as to compel or force the laborers
or employers in the free and legal exercise of Discovering secrets Revealing secrets
their industry or work; (Art. 290) (Art. 230)
Offender is a private Offender is a public officer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

115
individual, or public officer
not in exercise of official
function
The offender SEIZES the The offender COMES TO
papers or letters KNOW of the secrets of the
private individual by reason
of his office. Not necessary
that the secrets are
contained in papers/letters
The purpose of the offender The offender reveals such
is to discover the secrets of secrets without justifiable
another, revelation to reason.
another is not an element of
the crime

Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of

office

Elements:

1. Offender is a manager, employee or

servant;
2. He learns the secrets of his principal or
master in such capacity;
3. 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. Revealing of industrial secrets

Elements:

1. Offender is a person in charge, employee or

workman of a manufacturing or industrial
establishment;
2. The manufacturing or industrial
establishment has a secret of the industry which
the offender has learned;
3. Offender reveals such secrets;
4. 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.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

116