Page 1 of 6

People v. Mamantak and Taurak

charge: kidnapping for ransom

victim: Christopher Basario, 2 y/o

Teresa went with her son Christopher and daughter Zenaida to McDonald’s at Binondo,
Manila. Christopher looked for a vacant table while Zenaida ordered their food. Shortly after
Teresa took her seat, Christopher followed Zenaida to the counter. Barely had Christopher
gone from his mothers sight when she realized that he had disappeared. She and her sister
frantically looked for him inside and outside the premises of the fastfood outlet, to no avail. As
their continued search for the child was futile, they reported him missing to the nearest police
detachment. Months later, Teresa received a call from a woman who sounded like a muslim.
The caller claimed to have custody of Christopher and asked for P30,000 in exchange for the
boy. They agreed to conduct the pay-off at Lanao Del Norte. Upon seeing her son, Teresa
cried and embraced him. However, the child was unmoved. He no longer recognized nor
understood her for he could only speak in the muslim dialect. When asked who he was, the
boy gave a muslim name with Taurak as surname. Mamantak and Taurak interrupted Teresa
and demanded the ransom money. She answered that her niece had it and pointed to PO3
Palafox. Thereafter, Mamantak and PO3 Palafox boarded a jeepney which was parked
outside, under Tauraks watchful eyes. Inside the jeepney, PO3 Palafox handed the ransom
money to Mamantak. At this juncture, PO3 Palafox gave the pre-agreed signal and the
PAOCTF team then closed in and arrested Mamantak and Taurak.

Defense: Denial; took care of the child until someone claimed it.

RTC convicted the accused. CA affirmed but modified the penalty to death, ruling that the trial
court erred in not considering the demand for P30,000 as a demand for ransom. Such
circumstance required the imposition of the death penalty.

SC: Affirmed but reclusion perpertua pursuant to RA 9346.

Elements:

1. Offender is a private individual, not either of the parents of the victim or a public officer
who has a duty under the law to detain a person;
2. Kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
3. Act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
4. Following circumstances are present:

(a) kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 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 official.

If the victim is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. If the victim is kidnapped
and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention
 Page 2 of 6
becomes inconsequential. The crime is qualified and becomes punishable by death even if
none of the circumstances mentioned.

Kidnapping includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his
liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. The two-year-old Christopher
suddenly disappeared in Binondo, Manila and was recovered only after almost 16 months
from Taurak and Mamantak (both of them private individuals) in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte.
During the entire time the boy was kept away from his mother, he was certainly deprived or
restrained of his liberty. He had no means, opportunity or capacity to leave appellants custody
and return to his family on his own. Taurak unlawfully kept the child under her control and
custody and even brought him to Lanao del Norte. She demanded P30,000 in exchange for
his return to his mother. On the other hand, Mamantak’s actions (e.g., her presence in the
carinderia and her acceptance of the ransom) showed without doubt that she was aiding her
sister and was acting in concert with her.

The trial court deemed the amount (P30,000) as too measly, compared to what must have
been actually spent for the care and subsistence of Christopher for almost two years. It
therefore treated the amount not as ransom but as a reimbursement of expenses incurred for
taking care of the child. Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for
the redemption of a captured person that will release him from captivity. No specific form of
ransom is required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom
is intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victims freedom. The amount of and
purpose for the ransom is immaterial.
 Page 3 of 6
People v. Muit, et al.

charge: kidnapping for ransom with homicide and carnapping

victim: Engr. Ong

Seraspe, the personal driver of the victim Engr. Ong, drove a blue Pajero carrying Engr.
Roldan and the victim to visit a construction project site. At the site, Engr. Roldan and the
victim alighted from the Pajero and along with Engr. Dela Cruz, toured the site. Seraspe was
surprised to see that the three engineers who stood together suddenly lay prostrate on the
ground. Seraspe and Chavez saw an unidentified man standing near the three engineers. he
assailants dragged the victim towards the Pajero. They forced the victim to order Seraspe to
give them the keys to the Pajero. They then started the Pajero and drove away. The Pajero
was intercepted by the police but the accused were able to escape.

Defense: alibi

RTC convicted the accused. CA affirmed.

SC: Affirmed. The kidnapping for ransom with homicide and the carnapping were established
by the direct testimony of Ferraer (discharged as state witness), Seraspe and Chavez
(warehouseman of the construction company). Ferraer testified on how the group approached
and convinced him to let them use his house to keep the victim they planned to kidnap. At the
construction site, as testified to by Seraspe and Chavez, Muit and the other members of the
group pointed their guns at the victim and his companion and ordered them to lie prostrate on
the ground. After getting the keys to the Pajero from Seraspe, they forced the victim to board
the vehicle with Muit driving it. They immediately reported the kidnapping of the victim to the
police and the kidnappers were intercepted by the group led by Supt. Mission. Supt. Mission
testified that the kidnappers refused to surrender and engaged the police in a shoot out in
which the victim was among the casualties. Even though Pancho, Jr., Dequillo and Romeo did
not participate in the actual abduction of the victim, they should still be held liable, as the
courts below did, because of the existence of conspiracy.

The carnapping was committed by a band.

 Page 4 of 6

People v. Dionaldo

charge: kidnapping for ransom with homicide

victim: Edwin Navarro

Roderick dropped his brother Edwin Navarro off at a gym. 30 mins later, he received a text
message that Edwin had been kidnapped. Accused forcibly dragged a bloodied Edwin down
the stairs of the gym and pushed him inside a car. Next day, Roderick received a call from the
kidnappers who demanded P15M ransom money. Roderick arrived at the place where he was
supposed to give the ransom money but upon seeing the kidnappers, the latter drove away.
During the police investigation, Rodolfo, an employee of the gym confessed that he was part
of the kidnapping. He was the one who gave the tip to the kidnappers. The police found the
dead body of Edwin.

Defense: alibi

RTC convicted the accused of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. CA affirmed.

SC: Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide (not merely kidnapping). This is in view of the
victim’s (i.e., Edwin‟s) death, which was (a) specifically charged in the Information, and (b)
clearly established during the trial of this case. Where the person kidnapped is killed in the
course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely
an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under
Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime
under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659. Thus, further taking into
account the fact that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom,
accused-appellants’ conviction must be modified from Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention to the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide

RTC and CA failed to award civil indemnity as well as damages.

 Page 5 of 6
Madsali et al. v. People

charge: abduction with rape (Sajiron and Maron [father]) and serious illegal detention (Sajiron
and Egap)

victim: AAA, 15 y.o.

AAA and her aunt Inon Dama were fetching water in a cave. Suddenly, Sajiron arrived,
running towards them and carrying a badong (bolo). He held the hair of AAA and told her,
Sara, you go with me. If you will not go with me, I will kill you. Inon Dama came to AAA's
rescue, but Sajiron tried to hack her. Sajiron then drew his gun, pointed it at Inon Dama and
said, If you will not go, I will shoot you. Maron, Sajiron's father, suddenly appeared with a gun
and told AAA to come with them. Sajiron and Maron tied AAA’s hands behind her back,
covered her mouth with a piece of cloth, and brought her to the forest. There, AAA was untied
and undressed. Sajiron was undressed AAA. AAA pleaded for him to stop but to no avail.
Sajiron held her breast, touched her private parts and inserted his sex organ inside her
vagina. AAA resisted, but to no avail. During the entire time that AAA was being abused by
Sajiron, Maron stood guard and watched them. They left the forest and brought AAA to the
house of Egap, where she was detained in a room. Sajiron instructed Egap to guard AAA and
to shoot her if she would attempt to escape. 9 days after the abduction, Sajiron forced AAA to
undergo a marriage ceremony. After the marriage, AAA and Sajiron lived in the house of
Egap. While detained, AAA did not try to escape, because her house was very far from the
place where she was held captive, and her captors threatened to kill her and her family if she
would attempt to escape. During her detention, Sajiron abused her twice every night.

Defense: denial (validly married and engaged prior)

RTC: convicted as charged. CA affirmed.

SC: Kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape as the taking, as alleged, was not with
lewd designs. The only act that was alleged to have been attended with lewd designs was the
act of rape. Although the information does not specifically allege the term kidnap or detain, the
information specifically used the terms take and carry away. To kidnap is to carry away by
unlawful force or fraud or to seize and detain for the purpose of so carrying away. Thus, the
word take, plus the accompanying phrase carry away, as alleged in the information, was
sufficient to inform the accused that they were charged with unlawfully taking and detaining
AAA. 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. The crime of rape was also proven beyond reasonable doubt in this case.
Sajiron succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA through the use of force and
intimidation. we also find Sajiron guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of serious illegal
detention. All the elements of the crime of serious illegal detention are present in the instant
case: AAA, a female and a minor, testified that on July 2, 1994, after she was raped in the
forest, she was brought to and detained at the house of Egap and forced to cohabit with
Sajiron. From the very start of her detention, Egap directed Sajiron to guard her, and shoot
her if she attempted to escape. She did not dare to escape because the accused threatened
to kill her and her family if she attempted to flee.
 Page 6 of 6
People v. Mirandilla, Jr.

charge: kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape, and one count of rape with sexual assault

AAA was dancing during the eve of the fiesta. She went out of the dancing hall to buy
candies. While going back to the hall, a Mirandilla grabbed her and thrust a knife against her.
She did not dare to escape because the accused threatened to kill her and her family if she
attempted to flee. He told her not to move or ask for help. Another man joined and went
beside her, while two others stayed at her back, one of whom had a gun. They slipped
through the unsuspecting crowd. Mirandilla forced his hands inside her pants, into her panty,
and reaching her vagina, slipped his three fingers and rotated them inside. The pain
weakened her. He forcibly pulled her pants down and lifting her legs, pushed and pulled his
penis inside. At around midnight, Mirandilla arrived. Pointing a gun at AAA, he ordered her to
open her mouth. He forced his penis inside her mouth, pulling through her hair with his left
hand and slapping her with his right. After satisfying his lust, he dragged her into the tricycle
and drove to Bogtong, Legazpi. At the roads side, Mirandilla pushed her against a reclining
tree, gagged her mouth with cloth, and pulled up her over-sized shirt. Her underwear was
gone. Then she felt Mirandilla’s penis inside her vagina. They reached a nipa hut and AAA
was thrown inside. Her mouth was again covered with cloth. Mirandilla, with a gun aimed at
her point blank, grabbed her shirt, forced her legs open, and again inserted his penis into her
vagina. The following evening, Mirandilla and his gang brought AAA to Guinobatan, where
she suffered the same fate. They repeatedly detained her at daytime, moved her back and
forth from one place to another on the following nights. She was allegedly raped 27 times.

Defense: sweetheart

RTC: kidnapping, four counts of rape, and one count of rape through sexual assault. CA:
kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape, and one count of rape by sexual assault.

SC: Kidnapping and illegal detention with rape. The Court agrees with the CA in finding
Mirandilla guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, instead of simple
kidnapping as the RTC ruled. It was the RTC, no less, which found that Mirandilla kidnapped
AAA, held her in detention for 39 days and carnally abused her while holding a gun and/or a
knife. AAA was able to prove each element of rape. Notably, however, no matter how many
rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant
crime is only one kidnapping with rape. However, for the crime of kidnapping with rape, as in
this case, the offender should not have taken the victim with lewd designs, otherwise, it would
be complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. It having been established that Mirandilla’s
act was kidnapping and serious illegal detention (not forcible abduction) and on the occasion
thereof, he raped AAA several times, We hold that Mirandilla is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape.

We, therefore, modify the CA Decision. We hold that the separate informations of rape cannot
be considered as separate and distinct crimes in view of the above discussion.