This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-11-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We have held that the following elements must be established by the prosecution to obtain a conviction for kidnapping, viz.: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (d) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (2) it is committed by simulating public authority; (3) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or threats to kill him are made; or (4) the person kidnapped or detained, is a minor, a female, or a public officer. If the victim is a minor, or is kidnapped or detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of detention becomes immaterial.[29] 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.[30] | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The trial court awarded each victim One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each as exemplary damages. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the moral damages awarded to James is increased to P200,000.00 considering his minority,[37] and the exemplary damages awarded to both victims is increased to P100,000.00.[38] Accused-appellant Niegas is likewise rendered additionally liable for P100,000.00 in civil indemnity to both victims.[39] | |||||
|
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. | |||||