Cls

1
PEOPLE V. MAMANTAK
Hint: Nawala si Christopher nung sumama siya kay Nanay at Ate
bumili sa Mcdo. After over a year, may muslim na tumawag at
nagkita sa Lanao para sa 30K Kidnapping for Ransom
Facts:
1. Teresa went with Christopher and her elder sister Zenaida to
a McDonalds outlet in the KP Tower in Juan Luna St.,
Binondo, Manila. Teresa and Christopher looked for a vacant
table while Zenaida proceeded to order 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.
2. On February 25, 2001, 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. On March 27, 2001, the same muslim-sounding
woman called and instructed Teresa to get a recent photo of
her son from the Jalal Restaurant at the Muslim Center in
Quiapo, Manila. True enough, when Teresa went there,
someone gave her a recent picture of Christopher. She then
contacted the mysterious woman through the cellphone

number the latter had previously given her. When the woman
instructed her to immediately board a ship for Mindanao,
Teresa reasoned that she had not raised the ransom money
yet. They then agreed to conduct the pay off in the morning
of April 7, 2001 at Pitangs Carinderia in Kapatagan, Lanao
del Norte.
3. Teresa sought the help of the Presidential Anti-Organized
Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). A team was formed and Police
Officer (PO)3 Juliet Palafox was designated to act as
Teresas
niece.
Together with the PAOCTF team, Teresa left for Mindanao.
They arrived in Iligan City and proceeded to the designated
meeting place.
4. At around 8:30 a.m., while Teresa and PO3 Palafox were
waiting at Pitangs Carinderia, two women came. They were
Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad Sarapida Taurak.
Mamantak approached Teresa and PO3 Palafox and asked
who they were waiting for. Some conversation ensued
between them. Taurak came near Teresa and PO3 Palafox
and informed them that she had Christopher. Taurak asked
Teresa and PO3 Palafox to come with her but they refused.
Taurak reluctantly agreed to leave Mamantak with them
while she fetched Christopher.In the afternoon of the same
day, Taurak returned and told Teresa that Christopher was in
Digested by Ang, Bolante, Cabrera, Chua, Lim, Lina, Macapala, Maravilla, Narag, Pernato, Saldon, Suva, Tolentino,
Venenoso
a nearby ice plant. She asked Teresa to go with her but the
latter insisted on their agreement that the boy be handed over
at the carinderia. Taurak relented, left and came back after
several
minutes
with
Christopher.
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: In defense, Mamantak and Taurak denied the charges
against them. Taurak testified that at the time and date of the alleged
kidnapping, she was peddling wares in Divisoria market, Manila.
When she saw Christopher wandering about aimlessly, she talked to
him but he did not seem to understand her. She took the boy under
her care and waited for someone to come for him. No one did. As it
was already 7:00 p.m., she brought the boy home with her to the
Muslim Center in Quiapo. The next day, she and her husband took
the boy to the nearest police outpost but no one was there so they
just brought the boy to their stall. They opted to keep the boy until
his parents could claim him.
Charge: Kidnapping
RTC: Guilty of kidnapping but not for ransom because the 30K is
for board and lodging expenses of the minor
CA: Affirmed, but the appellate court ruled 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.
Thus, the appellate court affirmed the conviction of Taurak and
Mamantak with modification amending the penalty from reclusion
perpetua to death.
ISSUE: WON THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF QUALIFIED
KIDNAPPING BY CONSIDERING THE 30K AS RANSOM
HELD: Yes, the accuseds are guilty of Kidnapping for Ransom

Elements:
1. Offender kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner
deprive the latter of his liberty
Venenoso
2. Offender is a private individual

3. The detention is illegal.
4. It is attended by any of the following circumstances:
a.
If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more

than three days.
b. If it shall have been committed simulating public

authority
c.
If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted

upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to
kill him shall have been made.
d. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,

except when the accused is any of the parents, female or
a public officer.
Qualifying Circumstances: The penalty shall be death where:
1. The kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose
of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person,
even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were
present in the commission of the offense.
2. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention or
3. The victim is raped, or
Doctrines:
1. If the victim is a minor, the duration of his detention is
immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally
detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his
detention becomes inconsequential. The crime is qualified and
becomes punishable by death even if none of the circumstances
mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code is present.
2. The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation
of the victims liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect
it. It includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the
deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length
of time. And liberty is not limited to mere physical restraint but
embraces ones right to enjoy his God-given faculties subject only to
such restraints necessary for the common welfare.
3. 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.
4. The victim is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts
Venenoso
Facts applied:
Why kidnapping?
1. 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.
2. 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. He
had no choice but to stay with total strangers, go with them
to a far away place and learn a culture and dialect alien to
him. At such a very tender age, he was deprived of the liberty
to enjoy the company and care of his family, specially his
mother.
of the death penalty. On the other hand, the trial court

deemed the amount 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. (Kidnappers in
Mindanao today call it reimbursement for "board-andlodging.")
In this case, the payment of P30,000 was demanded as a
condition for the release of Christopher to his mother. Thus,
the Court of Appeals correctly considered it as a demand for
ransom.
3. Taurak unlawfully kept the child under her control and

custody and even brought him to Lanao del Norte.
Why Kidnapping for Ransom? (Qualified Kidnapping)
1. She demanded P30,000 in exchange for his return to his
mother.
The Court of Appeals considered the demand for P30,000 as
a qualifying circumstance which necessitated the imposition
Venenoso
PEOPLE VS MUIT, PANCHO.JR, DEQUILLO, PANCHO,

FERRAER
Hint: Kidnapping sa construction site. Nagkashootout. Conspiracy kidnapping for ransom with homicide and carnapping
Facts: Julaton, relative of Ferraer introduced Pancho Jr.,Dequillo and
4 other men to Ferraer. The group approached and convinced him to
let them use his house to keep the victim they planned to kidnap.
They planned the crime in Ferraers house and waited for the call
from Romeo to inform them when the victim would be at the
construction site. The group received a call from Romeo informing
them that the victim was already at the construction site <flexopac
site, tanauan batangas>, and so they went there to carry out their
plan. 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 <DRIVER
OF ENGR>, 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. Muit was one of the two persons
who survived the shoot out, but was apprehended by the police.
Pancho, Jr. returned to the house of Ferraer alone when the group
did not arrive at their meeting place. Ferraer, Pancho, Jr., and
Pancho, Sr. learned from the news that the group engaged the police
in a shoot out and most of them were killed, and that Muit was
arrested by the police.
Charge: Muit, Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, Romeo, Hermano, and Ferraer
were charged of kidnapping for ransom with homicide and
carnapping in two separate information.
RTC:
1. Only Muit, Pancho Jr., Dequillo, Romeo, and Ferraer were
arrested. Ferraer was discharged from the criminal cases by
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and was utilized as a state
witness.
2. Muit, Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Romeo guilty of carnapping
and kidnapping for ransom <did not give credence to the
claims of appellants that their extra judicial confessions were
procured through torture and noted that even without
appellants extra judicial confessions, there was still
sufficient evidence on record to hold them guilty>
CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Issues:
1. WON the accuseds are guilty of carnapping and kidnapping
and serious illegal detention?
2. WON there is a conspiracy in committing the crime of
kidnapping?
Venenoso
Held:
1. Yes, the accuseds are guilty of kidnapping for ransom with
homicide and carnapping.
Elements:
a.

than three days.

authority
c. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted
a public officer.

detention or
Doctrine:
1. The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual
deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled with indubitable
proof of intent of the accused to effect the same.
2. Neither actual demand for nor payment of ransom is
necessary for the consummation of the felony. It is sufficient
that the deprivation of liberty was for the purpose of
extorting ransom even if none of the four circumstances
mentioned in Article 267 were present in its perpetration. The
death of the victim as a result of the kidnapping only serves
as a generic aggravating circumstance for the rule is that
when more than one qualifying circumstances are proven,
the others must be considered as generic aggravating
circumstances.
3. "Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latters consent, or
Venenoso
by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or

by using force upon things.
aggravating circumstance because, the kidnapping was

already qualified by ransom.
4. Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the

commission of a crime. Where conspiracy is established, the
precise modality or extent of participation of each individual
conspirator becomes secondary since the act of one is the act
of all. The degree of actual participation in the commission
of the crime is immaterial.
C. Why Carnapping? Carnapping was committed when the

victims Pajero was forcibly taken away from him
contemporaneously with his kidnapping at the construction
site because it was committed by a band, which serves as a
generic aggravating circumstance, without any mitigating
circumstance. There is band whenever more than three
armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of the offense. As planned, Muit and three other
armed men kidnapped the victim and drove away with the
latters Pajero while two more persons waiting near the Pagasa road boarded the Pajero. In this case, death penalty was
imposed.
Facts applied: The totality of the prosecutions evidence in this case

established the commission of kidnapping for ransom with
homicide.
A. Why Kidnapping for ransom?
1. The accuseds are private individuals
2. The accused kidnapped and detained the victim thereby
depriving his liberty
3. The detention of the victim is illegal
of extorting ransom from the victim
Facts applied: 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.
B. Why not special complex it with homicide? The victim is

killed or dies as a consequence of the detention. There was a
shootout that resulted to the death of the victim. But in this
case, the resulting homicide is considered as a generic
The conspiracy to kidnap the victim was proven through

circumstantial evidence. All the appellants took active part in the
criminal conspiracy and performed different roles to consummate
their common plan.
2. Yes, there is a conspiracy in committing the crime of

kidnapping for ransom
Venenoso
1. The roles which Muit and his other companions played in the
actual abduction by pointing their guns at the victim and his
companion and ordered them to lie prostrate on the ground..
2. As for Dequillo, he was the one who procured the guns used
by the group.
3. Pancho, Jr. served as the driver of the back-up vehicle, and
4. Romeo was the groups informant.
MAGSALI V. PEOPLE
Hint: Forced marriage - special complex crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape
Facts:
1. Fifteen-year-old AAA and her aunt Inon Dama were fetching
water in a cave in Malitub, Bataraza, Palawan. Suddenly,
Sajiron arrived, running towards them and carrying
a badong (bolo). They tried to run away, but Sajiron
overtook them. 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. Luckily, she was able to shield herself
with a plastic container. Sajiron then drew his gun, which
was tucked in his waist, pointed it at Inon Dama., Inon
Dama went home and reported the incident to AAA's
mother. When Inon Dama left the place, Maron, Sajiron's
father, suddenly appeared with a gun and told AAA to come
with them. Sajiron and Maron tied her hands behind her
back, covered her mouth with a piece of cloth, and brought

her to the forest. There, AAA was untied and undressed,
leaving only her bra on. While Sajiron was undressing AAA,
she pleaded with him not to abuse her, but Sajiron told her
that if she would submit to his desire, her life would be
spared. Sajiron held her breast, touched her private parts
and inserted his sex organ inside her vagina. AAA resisted,
but to no avail. She felt pain and she noticed blood on her
private parts. She was sexually abused three times on the
ground, where she was made to lie down on a bed of leaves.
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.
2. On July 2, 1994, AAAs mother came to get AAA, but Egap
refused and threatened to kill her daughter if she would
report the matter to the authorities. Out of fear of losing her
daughter, she went home and did not report the incident to
the police authorities. Egap asked AAA if she wanted to
marry Sajiron, but she refused. AAA was then forced to
sign an unknown document, which she was not able to read.
Upon instruction of Egap, AAA and Sajiron were married by
Imam Musli Muhammad. The marriage was solemnized
against AAA's will and without the presence of her parents.
After the marriage, AAA and Sajiron lived in the house of
Egap, together with the latter's wife, children and mother-inlaw. During her detention, Sajiron abused her twice every
night. She was free to roam within the vicinity of the house
Venenoso
but she was usually accompanied by Egap's wife who served

as her guard. She was also guarded and threatened by Egap's
sons. She got pregnant after some time.
3. BBB and Inon Dama went to Puerto Princesa City to report
AAA's abduction to the proper authorities. AAA was
detained at the house of Egap from July 2, 1994 until
December 15, 1994. On December 16, 1994, Sajiron and
Egap were arrested by the police.
4. Defense: Sajiron claimed that he and AAA were engaged for
three years prior to their elopement. AAA married Sajiron
voluntarily and out of her own free will. The sexual
intercourse between AAA and Sajiron was consensual. The
defense further claimed that AAA merely filed criminal
charges against Sajiron because he did not pay the dowry
(dower) in the amount of P10,000.00 to AAA's
parents. Sajiron asserted that he did not pay the dowry
because he had already rendered services to AAA's family
for about three years
Charge:
1. Saijiron Lajim and Maron Lajim - Abduction with rape
2. Egap Madsali (Egap) and Sajiron Lajim (Sajiron) - Serious
illegal detention
RTC: All convicted as charged.
CA: Affirmed
Issue:
1. WON the Saijiron Lajim and Maron Lajim are guilty of the
Abduction with rape?
2. WON Egap Madsali (Egap) and Sajiron Lajim (Sajiron) are
guilty of Serious illegal detention
Held:
1. Yes, Saijiron and Maron are not guilty of Abduction with
rape but of the special complex crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape
Elements of Forcible Abduction:
1. The person abducted is a woman, regardless of her age, civil
status, or reputation;
2. The abduction is against her will; and
3. The abduction is with lewd designs.
Elements of Kidnapping with Rape
a.

than three days.

authority
Venenoso
10
c. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted

a public officer.
detention or
Doctrines:
1. 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. Whereas, to take is to get
into one's hand or into one's possession, power, or control by
force or stratagem.
2. 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. For there to be
kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from
going home. 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.
3. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning a felony and decide to commit it. It
may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during
or after the commission of the crime which, when taken
together, would be enough to reveal a community of criminal
design, as the proof of conspiracy is frequently made by
evidence of a chain of circumstances. Once established, all
the conspirators are criminally liable as co-principals
regardless of the degree of participation of each of them, for
in the contemplation of the law, the act of one is the act of
all.
4. 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 R.A. No. 7659.
Venenoso
11
5. Where the law provides a single penalty for two or more

component
offenses,
the
resulting crime
is
called
a special complex crime. Some of the special complex crimes
under the Revised Penal Code are:
(1) Robbery with homicide,
(2) Robbery with rape,
(3) Kidnapping with serious physical injuries,
(4) Kidnapping with murder or homicide, and
(5) Rape with homicide.
6. In a special complex crime, the prosecution must necessarily prove
each of the component offenses with the same precision that would
be necessary if they were made the subject of separate
complaints. As earlier mentioned, R.A. No. 7659 amended Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code by adding thereto this
provision: "When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of
the detention, or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing
acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed; and that this provision
gives rise to a special complex crime.
Facts applied:
1. Why not Forcible Abduction? A reading of the Information
in Criminal Case No. 12281, for abduction with rape, would
readily show that the allegations therein do not charge the
accused with forcible abduction, because the taking, as
alleged, was not with lewd designs. The only act that was
alleged to have been attended with lewd design was the act
of rape. Upon further perusal of the allegations in the
information, it appears that the crime charged was actually

the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention and rape, defined and penalized under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code.
2. Why Kidnapping with rape? 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.
a. The accusatory portion of the information alleges that
AAA was taken and carried away by Sajiron and
Maron against her will and brought to the forest; and,
on the occasion thereof, Sajiron -- by means of force,
threat, violence and intimidation -- had carnal
knowledge of AAA.
b. Sajiron and Maron, who are private individuals,
forcibly took and dragged AAA, a minor, to the forest
and held her captive against her will.
c. 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.
d. Sajiron succeeded in having carnal knowledge of
AAA through the use of force and intimidation. For
fear of losing her life, AAA had no choice but to give
in to Sajiron's beastly and lustful assault.
Venenoso
12
3. Why include Majon who did not commit the rape? Clearly,
conspiracy between Sajiron and Maron attended the
commission of forcible abduction and the subsequent rape of
AAA. In the case at bar, it was proven that:
a. Sajiron and Maron cooperated to prevent AAA from
resisting her abduction by tying her hands behind her
back and putting a piece of cloth in her mouth.
b. Maron watched and stood guard to make sure that no
one would interrupt or prevent the bestial act
perpetrated by his son against AAA.
c. Maron did not endeavor to prevent his son from
raping AAA thrice.
d. The next morning, Sajiron and Maron brought AAA
to the house of Egap to detain her there.
2. Yes, Egap Madsali (Egap) and Sajiron Lajim
(Sajiron) are guilty of Serious illegal detention.
Facts applied:
1. AAA, a female and a minor, testified that after she
was raped in the forest, she was brought to and
detained at the house of Egap and forced to cohabit
with Sajiron.
2. 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.
3. AAA was also guarded by Egap's wife. Even the two
sons of Egap, upon the latter's instruction, constantly
guarded and threatened her to keep her from leaving.

In fine, the accused had successfully instilled fear in
AAA's mind that escaping would cause her not only
her own life, but also the lives of her loved ones.
PEOPLE VS. FELIPE MIRANDILLA
Hint: Kinidnap ni Mirandilla and gang si AAA sa fiesta. Ni-rape ng
27 times in 39 days of detention Kidnapping with Rape no matter
how many times ni-rape
Facts:
1. On a town fiesta, AAA was dancing with her elder sister,
BBB. AAA went out of the dancing hall to buy candies in a
nearby store. While making her way back through the crowd,
Felipe Mirandilla grabbed her hand; his arm wrapped her
shoulders, with a knifes point thrust at her right side.
2. 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, walked farther as the deafening music faded into soft
sounds. After a four-hour walk through the grassy fields,
they reached the Mayon International Hotel, where they
boarded a waiting tricycle. Upon passing the Albay
Cathedral, the others alighted, leaving AAA alone with
Mirandilla who after receiving a gun from a companion,
Venenoso
13
drove the tricycle farther away and into the darkness.

Minutes later, they reached the Gallera de Legazpi in Rawis.
Mirandilla dragged AAA out of the tricycle and pushed her
inside a concrete house. At gunpoint he ordered her to
remove her pants. When she defied him, he slapped her and
hit her arms with a gun, 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. Sayang ka, she heard him
whisper at her, as she succumbed to pain and
exhaustion.When AAA woke up the following morning, she
found herself alone. She cried for help, shouting until her
throat dried. But no one heard her. No rescue came
3. Mirandilla arrived together with his gang. Pointing a gun at
AAA, he ordered her to open her mouth; she sheepishly
obeyed. 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, punched her arm, thigh, and lap, and
pulled up her over-sized shirt. Her underwear was gone.
Then she felt Mirandillas penis inside her vagina. A little
while, a companion warned Mirandilla to move out. And
they drove away. 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, first to Bonga, then back to Guinobatan, where she
was locked up in a cell-type house and was raped repeatedly
on the grassy field right outside her cell, then to Camalig,
where they caged her in a small house in the middle of a rice
field. She was allegedly raped 27 times.
4. AAA escaped and reported the matter to the police.
Mirandilla contended that they were sweethearts and AA in
fact even had an abortion.
Charge: Kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape and rape through
sexual assault
RTC: Kidnapping, four counts of rape, and one count of rape
through sexual assault.
CA: Special complex crime of kidnapping with rape (instead of
kidnapping as the RTC ruled), four counts of rape, and one count of
rape by sexual assault.
Issue: WON Mirandilla is guilty of the special complex crime of
kidnapping and illegal detention with rape.
Held:
Venenoso
14
Yes, Mirandilla is guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping

and illegal detention with rape only.
Doctrine: 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. This is because these composite
acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.A. No.
7659 punishes these acts with only one single penalty. In a way,
R.A. 7659 depreciated the seriousness of rape because no matter
how many times the victim was raped, like in the present case, there
is only one crime committed the special complex crime of
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.
contrast to Mirandillas tale of a love affair, is AAAs claim

of her horrific ordeal and her flight to freedom after 39 days
in captivity during which Mirandilla raped her 27 times.
3. Elements of Kidnapping with Rape applied:
1. Mirandilla is a private individual
2. The detention of AAA is illegal
3. AAA was detained for a period of 39 days
4. AAA was rape by reason or occasion of the detention:
a. Mirandilla had carnal knowledge of her;
b. Mirandilla inserted his penis into her mouth;
c. All acts are through force, threat, or intimidation.
Facts applied:
1. Mirandilla kidnapped AAA, held her in detention for 39 days
and carnally abused her while holding a gun and/or a knife
2. Mirandilla admitted in open court to have had sexual
intercourse with AAA, which happened almost nightly
during their cohabitation. He contended that they were livein partners, entangled in a whirlwind romance, which
intimacy they expressed in countless passionate sex, which
headed ironically to separation mainly because of AAAs
intentional abortion of their first child to be a betrayal in its
gravest form which he found hard to forgive. In stark
Venenoso

Cls

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cls

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

contacted the mysterious woman through the cellphone

HELD: Yes, the accuseds are guilty of Kidnapping for Ransom

2. Offender is a private individual

If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more

b. If it shall have been committed simulating public

If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted

d. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,

4. The victim is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts

of the death penalty. On the other hand, the trial court

3. Taurak unlawfully kept the child under her control and

PEOPLE VS MUIT, PANCHO.JR, DEQUILLO, PANCHO,

If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more

b. If it shall have been committed simulating public

even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were

by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or

aggravating circumstance because, the kidnapping was

4. Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the

C. Why Carnapping? Carnapping was committed when the

Facts applied: The totality of the prosecutions evidence in this case

B. Why not special complex it with homicide? The victim is

The conspiracy to kidnap the victim was proven through

2. Yes, there is a conspiracy in committing the crime of

back, covered her mouth with a piece of cloth, and brought

but she was usually accompanied by Egap's wife who served

If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more

b. If it shall have been committed simulating public

c. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted

2. The crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of

5. Where the law provides a single penalty for two or more

information, it appears that the crime charged was actually

guarded and threatened her to keep her from leaving.

drove the tricycle farther away and into the darkness.

her vagina. The following evening, Mirandilla and his gang

Yes, Mirandilla is guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping

contrast to Mirandillas tale of a love affair, is AAAs claim

You might also like