This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-12-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution for kidnapping, the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of the latter's liberty, in any manner, needs to be established by indubitable proof.[10] And in this case, the actual taking of the baby without the consent of her parents is clear proof of appellant's intent to deprive AAA of her liberty. | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| From the above testimony of Atty. Soriano, it was obvious that there was actual confinement and that he was deprived of his liberty. The primary element of the crime of kidnapping is actual confinement, detention and restraint of the victim.[64] There must be a showing of actual confinement or restriction of the victim, and that such deprivation was the intention of the malefactor. An accused is liable for kidnapping when the evidence adequately proves that he forcefully transported, locked up or restrained the victim.[65] There must exist indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactor was to deprive the victim of his liberty. The restraint of liberty must not arise merely as an incident to the commission of another offense that the offender primarily intended to commit.[66] | |||||
|
2003-12-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The primary element of the crime of kidnapping is actual confinement, detention and restraint of the victim.[8] There must be a showing of actual confinement or restriction of the victim, and that such deprivation was the intention of the malefactor. An accused is liable for kidnapping when the evidence adequately proves that he forcefully transported, locked up or restrained the victim.[9] There must exist indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactor was to deprive the victim of his liberty. The restraint of liberty must not arise merely as an incident to the commission of another offense that the offender primarily intended to commit.[10] | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under Rule 130, Section 36 of the Rules of Court, a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge, i.e., which are derived from his own perception; otherwise, such testimony would be hearsay. Hearsay evidence is defined as "evidence not of what the witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others."[10] The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else has told him, whether orally or in writing.[11] In Sanvicente v. People,[12] we held that when evidence is based on what was supposedly told the witness, the same is without any evidentiary weight for being patently hearsay. Familiar and fundamental is the rule that hearsay testimony is inadmissible as evidence.[13] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The primary element of the crime of kidnapping is actual confinement, detention and restraint of the victim.[37] A review of the prosecution's own narration of events shows that the prosecution did not establish actual confinement, detention or restraint of the child, which is the primary element of kidnapping. The victim's and Reyes' testimonies do not adequately prove that the victim was forcefully transported, locked up or restrained.[38] The mother's testimony - based on what Elmer Reyes said - was obviously hearsay and could not establish what appellant's intent was. Absent any indubitable proof of a purposeful or knowing action by the accused to forcibly restrain the victim, there can be no taking coupled with intent to complete the commission of the offense.[39] | |||||