This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-04-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Conviction must stand on the strength of the Prosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of the defense the accused put up.[50] Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt falls short of this requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal should come as a matter of course. | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
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. | |||||
|
2011-04-13 |
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. | |||||
|
2010-02-04 |
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. | |||||