Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOCELYN ACBANGIN Y RADAM

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 178771 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO PERALTA, J.
The crime of kidnapping was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Appellants Lando and Al, both private individuals, forcibly took AAA, a female, away from the house of the Estrellas and held her captive against her will. Thereafter, appellant Lando brought AAA to his house in San Miguel Tarlac, whereby she was deprived of her liberty for almost one month. It is settled that the crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also in detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty. [41] For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. [42] Its essence is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. [43] Although AAA was not confined in an enclosure, she was restrained and deprived of her liberty, because every time appellant Lando and his wife went out of the house, they brought AAA with them. The foregoing only shows that AAA was constantly guarded by appellant Lando and his family.
	GR No. 181822 2011-04-13	PEOPLE v. JOEL BALUYA Y NOTARTE PERALTA, J.
As to the second element of the crime, the deprivation required by Article 267 of the RPC means not only the imprisonment of a person, but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. [44] It involves a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. [45] If the victim is a child, it also includes the intention of the accused to deprive the parents of the custody of the child. [46] In other words, the essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. [47] In the present case, Glodil was in the control of appellant as he was kept in a place strange and unfamiliar to him. Because of his tender age and the fact that he did not know the way back home, he was then and there deprived of his liberty. The intention to deprive Glodil's parents of his custody is also indicated by appellant's actual taking of the child without the permission or knowledge of his parents, of subsequently calling up the victim's mother to inform her that the child is in his custody and of threatening her that she will no longer see her son if she failed to show his wife to him.
	GR No. 179570 2010-02-04	EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
In the case at bar, Sajiron and Maron, who are private individuals, forcibly took and dragged AAA, a minor, to the forest and held her captive against her will. The crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also of detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty.[36] For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home.[37] Its essence is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.[38] In the present case, although AAA was not actually confined in an enclosed place, she was clearly restrained and deprived of her liberty, because she was tied up and her mouth stuffed with a piece of cloth, thus, making it very easy to physically drag her to the forest away from her home.
	GR No. 148228 2003-12-04	PEOPLE v. PAMPING PAINGIN CARPIO, J.
In this case, actual restraint of the victim's liberty was evident from the moment appellant clubbed the victim on the neck. Appellant not only restricted Pati's freedom of movement, but appellant's blow also disabled the victim from resisting appellant's criminal design. This facilitated accused's capacity to carry physically Pati to an unknown place. Obviously, this constitutes forcible taking. The circumstances surrounding Pati's disappearance are indubitable proof of a purposeful or knowing action by appellant to forcibly take the victim. The actual taking indicated an intention to deprive the victim of his liberty.[11] In this case, appellant and his companions actually took Pati away. For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary to place the victim in an enclosed place. It is sufficient to detain or deprive him in any manner of his liberty.[12]
	GR Nos. 151111-12 2003-12-01	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. ERNESTO M. ESCALANTE TINGA, J.
To secure conviction for kidnapping and serious illegal detention defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,[35] as amended, the following requisites must concur, namely: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention has lasted for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.[36]
	GR No. 152285 2003-10-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE OBESO PANGANIBAN, J.
We agree with appellant. It is true that for kidnapping to take place, it is not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure;[15] neither is it necessary that the detention be prolonged.[16] However, the essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.[17]