5.) People v.

Trestiza  It has been found that the police operation was not
Facts: legitimate, as the pre-operation sheet by the defense was
 PO1 Trestiza being charged of Kidnapping for ransom and not authenticated.
Robbery
 PO1 Trestiza and P/S Insp. Loriemar Manrique,  Thus the elements of kidnapping are present by:
members of the PNP is being charged with o 1.) The persons involved are private
kidnapping a certain Lawrence Yu and Maria individuals (they were not acting in
Navarro for the purpose of extorting money where relation to their official functions)
they demanded the amount 1m ransom money for o 2.) They detained / deprived of liberty
their release Irma and Lawrence against their will. And
 Irma and her boyfriend Lawrence were at a disco in 3.) The act or detention was illegal and the
Makati attending a party. When they were proceeding to o 4.) Fourth element was not necessary as it
their car, 3 armed men shown up. was sufficiently proven that there was
 Irma herself was handcuffed and was ushered inside their ransom demanded
car. During this time, her boyfriend Lawrence was also  Ransom was proved by the fact that they were only
ushered inside a van. released after providing 180k and that they were receiving
 Her belongings were taken inside the car and a 1m calls for the remaining balance even after the kidnapping/
ransom money was demanded otherwise they would not  Petition denied, guilty of kidnapping for ransom.
be released
 Lawrence was able to raise 180k and was released
thereafter
 One of the appellants continued calling them for the
balance of the remaining ransom money and an
entrapment operation was executed
 During the pendency of the case, the Prosecution
withdrew the Information for Kidnapping alleging that the
accused were not private individuals who were conducting
a police operation during the said kidnapping
 Defense alleges that they were doing a legitimate police
operation.

Issue:
 Should the case against the appellants prosper given that
they are members of the police?
 Are they guilty of kidnapping for ransom?

Ruling:
 Even a public officer can commit the crime of kidnapping
 Citing previous jurisprudence of People v Satiano: If the
victim was detained and taken away without the
furtherance of their official capacity, it is not committed in
relation to their office, but in purely private capacity.
 Further, the Court noted that if a policeman kidnaps the
victim except when legally authorized by police
operations, he cannot be said to be acting in an official
capacity, hence he shall be treated as a private individual
in relation to the crime being charged.
6.) People v. Dionaldo
Facts:
 Dionaldo being charged of Kidnapping with Serious Illegal
Detention
 A certain Edwin Navarro was forcibly dragged down
a stairway of a gym in Caloocan and pushed inside a
car.
 The brother of the kidnapped victim received a call asking
for 15m php for his brother
 After negotiations, the kidnappers and the brother agreed
on a 110k price.
 The brother was told to proceed to Centennial Village and
park beside Libingan ng mga Bayani for the exchange
 After several hours, a car pulled up in front of his
vehicle where 4 men alighted, uttered the word
“alat”, the men then went back inside the car and
drove away.
 The following day, the dead body of Edwin was found.
Issue:
 Are the appellants guilty of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention?
Ruling:
 The Court modified the decision of the CA of Kidnapping
and Serious Illegal Detention to the special complex crime
of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide.
 The Court found this proper as the victim’s death was
specifically charged in the Information and that an appeal
in a criminal case throws open the entire case wide open
for review.
 Amendments in our criminal statutes introduced the
concept of special complex crime of kidnapping with
murder or homicide
o Eliminated the distinction between the scenarios
where the killing of the kidnapped victim was
purposely sought and where the killing was not
deliberate or was an afterthought.
o In either case, it will not anymore be considered as
separate crimes but a special complex crime.
 The case is sufficiently established of detainment
with murder, including the demand for ransom.
Thus the Court find it proper that the crime be
charged as Kidnapping for Ransom with Murder.
 Appeal Dismissed, modified ruling to guilty of Kidnapping
for Ransom with Homicide
14.)People v Astorga
Facts:
 Astorga is being charged with the crime of kidnapping
 Children were near the store of the grandfather of the
victim Yvonne Traya, a minor of 8 years old.
 A brown out occurred that evening whilst the accused,
Boy Astorga, during this time the accused told Yvonne to
go with him to buy candy and immediately grabbed and
held her hand. Further, accused placed his hand on her
shoulder and covered his mouth.
 Yvonne was dragged inside the compound of an
elementary school, then as they were walking
around and saw that no person was on the gate, he
brought her out to the highway
 Victim cried and protested that she must go home but
appellant was still forced to walk and she continued crying
 As they were walking, a group of men walking the
opposite direction got their attention, appellant
hurriedly walked then ran away but the group caught up
to them resulting to Yvonne being brought home by the
group of men
Issue:
 Is Astorga guilty of kidnapping?
Ruling:
 First, petitioner argues that there was no motive why the
accused will kidnap the minor
o Court noted that it is insignificant as motive is not
an element of the crime kidnapping
o Motive will only be material when the evidence is
circumstantial or inconclusive
o In this case, the commission of the crime is not
questioned as the appellant himself admitted of the
taking of the minor Yvonne.
 Second, petitioner contends that prosecution failed to
prove the fact of detention or deprivation of liberty
o It is clear that the appellant and the victim were
constantly on the move.
o The testimonies does not establish actual
confinement or restraint of the victim which is
the primary element of kidnapping
o It has not been proven by evidence that Astorga
wanted to detain Yvonne, and he did not succeed
in actually detaining her.
 o The forcible dragging by petitioner cannot be said
to be of actual confinement or restriction.
 Rather the Court noted that the proper crime committed is
grave coercion which has the following elements:
o The person is prevented from doing something not
unlawful, or forced to do something against his will
be it lawful or unlawful
o The prevention or compulsion is effected by
violence, either by force or intimidation
o The person who restrains the will and liberty has
no right to do so (has no authority under the law or
has no existence of a lawful right).
 While there is no actual detainment or lockup by the
minor, and no evidence of intent to detain is established,
it is clear that the Yvonne was forced against her will
to come with the accused.
 Thus the Court ruled that the appeal is partially granted
such that the accused is convicted of grave coercion.
15.) People v Santos
Facts:
 Santos is being charged of kidnapping
 Charmaine (victim; 7yo) was left at school by her mom,
then later that day as she was to fetch her child, the
teacher told her that somebody already had earlier
fetched her daughter
 She reported it to the authorities and was told to contact a
kagawad, the kagawad told her that the child of the name
Charmaine is there and upon presentation of birth certificate, the
child was returned to the mum
 2 days later though, another woman, a certain Mercy Santos
(appellant) was claiming the child from kagawad Bautista
wherein they contacted NBI and arrested the appellant
 Apparently what happened was that kagawad Bautista was at a
store in Q.Ave when a woman approached and asked her if she
could leave her child with her, after sometime the woman still
have not returned.
 Bautista read in a newspaper a kidnapping article of a minor and
then proceeded to call the police where it led to the claiming of
the child by the proper parents
 Apparently what happened was that the kid was taken by Mercy
Santos at the school with a promise to give her a surprise if she
went with her to a big house; the minor was in fact brought to a
big house and that they slept there; and that she was brought to
the store.
Issue:
 Is Mercy Santos guilty of kidnapping a minor?
Ruling:
 The fact that the victim agreed to go with her does not mean
that she was not deprived of her liberty because the victim went
with her on false inducement with which the victim would not
have done so
 The Court noted that this is tantamount to the deprivation of her
personal liberty and endangered her life
 The Court further noted that she was actually locked up
inside what was referred to as the big house, further even
though she was just there for one night the 4 days she was
under the custody of Bautista was considered included in the
time she was deprived of her liberty.
 Further, since the minor was locked up, the duration of the
deprivation is not the determinant but rather the fact that the
victim was a minor.
 The Court further noted that the victim was not merely
forced to go with her against her will but she actually
locked her up in the big house
 Court finds her guilty of kidnapping of a minor; decision
affirmed.
16.)Barbasa v Tuquero
Facts:
 Petitioner is the president of Push-Thru Marketing Inc.
whom have leased commercial stalls owned by Tutuban
Properties Inc.
 They received a notice of disconnection of utilities from
TPI for failure to settle their obligations for utilities,
electricity, and rentals.
 Petitioner settled the electricity and utility bills
however was not able to pay back their rentals.
 Due to failure to pay back their rentals, TPI, with its head
of security and several armed guards disconnected
electricity to the stalls of PTMI
 Petitioner is now filing a criminal complaint of grave
coercion vs. TPI
 They alleged that TPI and its officers cut off the
electricity in a violent and intimidating manner
 Respondents on the other hand assert that the
disconnection was done peacefully and that they had the
lawful right to do so.
 Respondents also pointed out that PTMI has an
outstanding balance of 5.9m
Issue:
 Is the act of disconnecting by TPI of disconnecting the
electricity and the manner thereof constitutes grave
coercion?
Ruling:
 Records show there was no violence, force, or intimidation
 To the contrary it was done peacefully and with written
notice to the respondents (PTMI)
 There was also a penalty clause of disconnection in
the contract in case there was such failure to pay
 There can be no grave coercion as the contract has given
TPI the right to disconnect for such failure to pay that
PTMI accepted and signed.
 Contracts have the force of law between the parties, thus
the disconnection of TPI was not unlawful
 Petition denied; CA decision affirmed.
17.)Baleros v People
Facts:
 Petitioner Renato Baleros is moving for partial
reconsideration for the decision that acquitted him of
attempted rape but convicted him guilty of light coercion
(unjust vexation).
 Petitioner argues that the Information of rape did not
contain the charge of light coercion or unjust vexation,
thus he cannot be convicted of such charge.
 The Information stated that there is a forceful covering of
the face of a certain Martina Albano with a piece of cloth
soaked in chemical with dizzying effects….feloniously
commenced the commission of rape but was unable to
perform all acts
 Though he has been convicted for the charge of
attempted rape, petitioner argues that the
Information did not allege that the covering of her
face with the piece of cloth soaked in chemical
caused her annoyance, irritation, torment, distress
and disturbance
Issue:
 Given that unjust vexation was not alleged and the result
was annoyance/disturbance in the Information, can he still
be convicted of light coercion (unjust vexation)?
Ruling:
 Court noted that malice, compulsion, or restraint need not
be alleged in an Information for unjust vexation
 This is because because the term (Unjust Vexation) is
broad enough to include any human conduct which
although not productive of physical or material harm,
would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person
 The Court noted that the paramount question in charges
of unjust vexation is that if in the mind of the victim,
it has caused annoyance, irritation, torment,
distress, or disturbance.
 In the case at bar the very fact that the complainant
cried while relating to her classmates the story and
that she filed a case for attempted rape proved that
in fact she was disturbed.
 Petition denied with finality
18.)Ong Chiu Kwan v CA 19.)People v Pablo Estacio
Facts: Facts:
 Ong Chiu Kwan is being charged with Unjust Vexation for 
cutting the electric wires, water pipes, and telephone lines
of Crazy Feet, a business establishment owned and
operated by Mildred Ong
 Kwan ordered a person to relocate the lines of Crazy Feet
as it posed as a disturbance. This was done during peak
hours of the business thus, interrupting its business
operations
 Kwan though failed to produce a permit from the
appropriate authorities to allow him to cut the electric
wires, telephone lines, and water pipes.

Issue:
 Is Kwan guilty of unjust vexation?

Ruling:
 Petitioner admitted himself that he ordered such cutting of
the lines because it crossed his property line
 He failed however to show authorization or permit to
relocate the lines.
 Further he timed the interruption during the peak hours.
 Thus, he unjustly annoyed or vexed the complainant.
 Decision: accused Ong Chiu Kwan is found guilty of unjust
vexation