Title Nine Article 267.
Kidnapping and serious illegal
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND
SECURITY
Chapter One. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
Section One – Illegal Detention
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
Article 268. Slight illegal Detention
Article 269. Unlawful arrest
Section Two – Kidnapping of Minors
Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home
Section Three – Slavery and servitude
Article 272. Slavery
Article 273. Exploitation of Child Labor
Article 274. Service rendered under compulsion in
payment of debt
Chapter Two – CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
Section One – Abandonment of helpless persons and
exploitation of minors
Article 275. Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of one’s own victim
Article 276. Abandoning a minor
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by person
entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents
Article 278. Exploitation of minors
Article 279. Additional penalties for other offenses
Section Two – Trespass to dwelling
Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling
Article 281. Other forms of trespass
Section Three – Threats and Coercion
Article 282. Grave threats
Article 283. Light threats
Article 284. Bond for good behavior
Article 285. Other light threats
Article 286. Grave coercions
Article 287. Light coercions
Article 288. Other similar coercions (compulsory
purchase of merchandise and payment of wages
by means of tokens)
Article 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of
combination of capital or labor through violence or
threats
Chapter Three – DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF
SECRETS
Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of
correspondence
Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office
Article 292. Revelation of industrial secrets
detention
Elements:
1. Offender is a private individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other
manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be
illegal;
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the
following circumstances is present:
a. The kidnapping lasts for more than
3 days;
b. It is committed 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 officer.
 If the offender is a public officer,
the crime is arbitrary detention. The public
officer must have a duty under the law to detain
a person to be liable for arbitrary detention. If
he has no such duty, and he detains a person, he
is liable under this article.
 When the victim is a minor and the
accused is one of the parents, the penalty shall
be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 300
pesos or both (Article 271, par. 2)
 The essential element of kidnapping
is the deprivation of the offended party’s
liberty under any of the four instances
enumerated. But when the kidnapping was
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, it
is not necessary that one or any of circumstances
enumerated be present.
 When the kidnapping is done for
the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim
or any other person, actual demand for ransom is
not necessary, as long as it can be proven that
the kidnapping was done for the purpose of
extorting ransom.
 It is essential in the crime of illegal
detention that there be actual confinement or
restriction of the person of the offended party.
 Not necessary that the victim be
placed in an enclosure, as long as he is deprived,
in any manner, of his liberty.
 Detention is illegal when not
ordered by competent authority or not permitted
by law.
 Special Complex Crime of
Kidnapping with murder – when the victim is
killed or dies as a consequence of the detention,
the maximum penalty (death) shall be imposed.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
94
 Where the victim is taken from one
place to another solely for the purpose of killing
him, the crime committed is murder.
 Maximum penalty is imposed in the
ff. cases:
o If the purpose of detention is to
extort ransom
o When the victim is killed or dies as
a consequence of the detention
o When the victim is raped
o When the victim is subjected to
torture or dehumanizing acts.
 Conspiracy to extort ransom makes
all the conspirators liable under this article,
including those who did not take part in the
money.
Illegal detention Arbitrary detention
Committed by a private Committed by a public
individual, who unlawfully officer or employee, who
deprives a person of his detains a person without
liberty legal ground
Crime against personal Crime against the
liberty fundamental laws of the
state
People vs. Tomio
A Japanese national named Tomio was arrested after being
implicated for possessing marijuana. Two other Japanese
claimed that they paid money for Tomio’s release and so
they held Tomio under their custody, asking for the amount
they allegedly advance to the police.
HELD: Even if the two accused only wanted to recover the
money they allegedly advanced to the police, the crime is
still kidnapping because of the essential element of
deprivation of liberty.
People vs. Mercado
The accused held a knife against his girlfriend’s sister for
nearly five hours. The victim’s ordeal ended only after the
barangay captain was able to subdue the accused.
HELD: The crime is kidnapping because the victim was
actually restrained or deprived of her liberty,
notwithstanding the fact that the accused only wanted the
victim to produce her.
People vs. Del Socorro
Del Socorro grabbed a little girl and brought the child to a
doctor, asking for 700 pesos in return. The doctor gave the
child to her spinster aunt.
HELD: The defense that the child voluntarily went with the
accused is belied by the fact that the child openly resisted
the abduction and even had to be carried to the jeep.
People vs. Lim
Lim took in two young girls who were loitering in front of
her sari-sari store. Lim sent the younger girl to Cebu while
the older girl stayed in the store. Days later, the girls’
father arrived to bring the two girls back with him.
HELD: There is no kidnapping in this case because the two
minors voluntarily entered Lim’s residence and there was
no showing that there was actual confinement or
restriction of the person of the offended party. Both girls
were free to go in and out of the store.
People vs. Padica
A 14-year old boy was brought to a sugarcane plantation,
where he was shot and killed immediately. The accused
demanded ransom soon after.
HELD: Where the evident purpose of taking the victim was
to kill him, and from the acts of the accused it cannot be
inferred that the latter’s purpose was to actually detain or
deprive the victim of his liberty, the subsequent killing of
the victim did not constitute the crime of murder. The
demand for ransom did not convert the crime into
kidnapping since no deprivation of liberty was involved.
People vs. Luartes
Luartes kidnapped a 3-yr old girl outside Isettan Recto. The
girl was in the mall with her mother, who lost her. Luartes’
defense was that he was merely helping the lost girl find
her mother. He says he had no intention of kidnapping
Junichi and that the prosecution witnesses (police officers)
merely misconstrued his actuations.
HELD: If indeed accused-appellant was trying to help the
lost child, why then did he misrepresent himself as her
uncle? And, if his intention was only to help the child look
for her mother, why did he have to board a passenger
jeepney taking the child with him?
The essence of kidnapping under Art. 267 is the actual
deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the intent
of the accused to effect it. The crime in this case clearly
comes under par. 4 of Art. 267 of the Penal Code. The
detention was committed by Luartes who was a private
individual and the person kidnapped was a three (3)-year
old minor.
People vs. Pavillare
Pavillare was convicted of kidnapping an Indian national
and sentenced to death. He argues that he should have
been convicted of simple robbery only and not kidnapping
with ransom because the evidence proves that their prime
motive was to obtain money and that the complainant was
detained only for two hours.
HELD: The pretense that the money was supposedly in
exchange for the dropping of the charges for rape is not
supported by the evidence. The accused released the
complainant when the money was handed over to him and
after counting the money, he and his companions
immediately left the scene. This clearly indicated that the
payment of the ransom money is in exchange for the liberty
of the private complainant.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
95

The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours
does not alter the nature of the crime committed. The
crime of kidnapping is committed by depriving the victim of
liberty whether he is placed in an enclosure or simply
restrained from going home. As squarely expressed in
Article 267, above-quoted the penalty of death is
imposable where the detention is committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom, and the duration of the
detention is not material.
People vs. Ballenas
Accused Ballenas pointed a short firearm to Wilma and
Consorcia inside their home. Accused told Wilma to
accompany him to Maria his girlfriend. Wilma refused, as
they were about to eat supper. Consorcia also told her
daughter, Wilma not to go out because it was already dark.
Accused Ballenas forced Wilma to go out with him. Because
of the abduction, Consorcia sought the help of a neighbor,
Andres but to no avail, as Andres shut the door on her for
fear of Ballenas as the latter is known as a member of the
dreaded Sparrow Unit of the NPA.
The following morning, Consorcia reported the abduction of
Wilma to her son-in-law who is a member of the Integrated
National Police. She learned from Aurelio that Wilma was
already dead. The police then proceeded to the scene of
the incident. Ballenas was found guilty of forcible
abduction with rape and sentenced to Reclusion perpetua.
HELD: BALLENAS committed the crime of forcible
abduction with rape on March 20, 1987, before the passage
of Republic Act 7659 or the Heinous Crimes Law that took
effect on December 31, 1993. At the time that BALLENAS
committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape, the
penalty then applicable was reclusion perpetua to death.
The use by BALLENAS of a firearm in committing the crime,
a fact duly alleged in the information and proven in court,
should have warranted the imposition of the death penalty.
However, since the crime took place prior to the
implementation of RA 7659, the trial court correctly ruled
that the penalty that can be imposed on BALLENAS is
reclusion perpetua. Hence, despite the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty herein of
reclusion perpetua would not be affected. Under Article 63
of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua should be applied regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance that may have attended the
commission of a crime.
People v. Silongan, 401 SCRA 459 (2003)
FACTS: Businessman Alexander Saldaña went to
Isulan, Sultan Kudarat with Rejuso, Tormis, and Cinco to
meet with Macapagal Silongan alias Commander Lambada
concerning the gold nuggets that were purportedly being
sold by the latter. During the meeting Macapagal told them
that someone in his family has just died and that he has to
pick up an elder brother in hence, they had better transact
business in the afternoon. In the afternoon, Alexander’s
group and Macapagal, with Teddy and Oteng both surnamed
Silongan, traveled to fetch Macapagal’s brother.
Afterwards, the group returned to Isulan on Macapagal’s
orders. At Isulan, Macapagal gave additional instructions to
wait until dark allegedly because the funeral arrangements
for his relative were not yet finished. When the group
finally got on their way, Macapagal who was earlier busy
talking over his hand-held radio with someone in the
Maguindanaoan dialect ordered the driver to drive slowly
towards the highway. Oteng and his bodyguards alighted
somewhere long the way. As they neared the highway,
Macapagal ordered the driver to stop. Suddenly, 15 armed
men appeared. Alexander and his 3 companions were
ordered to go out of the vehicle, tied up, and blindfolded.
Macapagal and Teddy were also tied up and blindfolded,
but nothing more was done to them. The 4 were taken to a
mountain hideout. After much haggling twelve million
pesos was demanded from Alexander for his release, They
made Alexander write a letter to his wife to pay the
ransom which was hand-carried by a certain Jafar, alias
Dante, and two of the victims, Tormis and Cinco, who both
later managed to escape. No ransom was obtained so other
persons were sent and one of the victims, Rejuso to
renegotiate with Alexander’s wife. No agreement was
likewise reached. Seven days later, Alexander and Rejuso
were transferred to the town proper and was guarded them
by several men. When the kidnappers learned that the
military was looking for Alexander, they returned to the
mountain hideout and stayed there for two weeks.
At one time, Alexander Saldaña was made to stay
at a river hideout where a certain Commander Kugta held
him and sheltered his abductors for at least a week. There,
Alexander saw Macapagal with Manap and other armed
men. These men brought Alexander to different places and
was made to write more letters to his family. All in all
appellant was detained for a total of 6 months. Saldaña
was later released to the military in exchange for a relative
of one of the abductors who was caught delivering a
ransom note to Alexander’s family.
HELD: The essence of the crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention as defined and penalized in
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is the actual
deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with proof
beyond reasonable doubt of an intent of the accused to
effect the same. It is thus essential that the following be
established by the prosecution: (1) the offender is a private
individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act
of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the
commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances
enumerated in Article 267 be present. But if the kidnapping
was done for the purpose of extorting ransom, the fourth
element is no longer necessary.
There is no mistaking the clear, overwhelming
evidence that the appellants abducted Alexander Saldaña
and his companions at gunpoint and deprived them of their
freedom. That the appellants took shifts guarding the
victims until only Alexander was left to be guarded and in
transferring Alexander from one hideout to another to
prevent him from being rescued by the military establish
that they acted in concert in executing their common
criminal design.
People v. Cortez, 324 SCRA 335 (2000)
FACTS: Mendoza was in her house when accused
Cortez, Callos and Betonio, all armed with bolos, arrived.
They were looking for Lolita's cousin, Esminda, and were
threatening to kill him on sight. Unable to find Santos, they
decided to abduct Lolita to prevent her from reporting the
incident to the police. Accompanied by the other two,
accused Callos pointed his bolo at Lolita's back and dragged
her to the mountain. They brought her to the house of
Torral, an uncle of accused Cortez, where Cortez bound
her hand with a belts and thereafter continued their search
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
96
for Santos. Hours later, PO2 Santos and barangay captain
Colarina rescued found Lolita outside the nipa hut of the
Torrals, conversing with Pablo Torral. Lolita told them that
the Torrals did not prevent her from leaving their house.
However, she did not attempt to escape for fear that the
accused would make good their threat to kill her.
Appellants allege failure to establish one of the essential
elements of the crime, i.e., deprivation of the victim's
liberty. They point out that at the time of the rescue,
Lolita was not physically confined inside the house as they
found her standing outside, conversing with Pablo Torral.
They stress that Lolita herself declared that she was not
prevented by the Torrals from leaving the house.
HELD: For the crime of kidnapping to prosper,
the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of his
liberty, in any manner, has to be established by indubitable
proof. However, it is not necessary that the offended party
be kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of
locomotion. In the case at bar, the deprivation of Lolita's
liberty was amply established by evidence. When the
appellants failed to find Lolita's cousin, they forcibly
dragged her to the mountains and kept her in the house of
the Torrals. Cortez even bound her hands with a belt.
Although at the time of the rescue, she was found outside
the house talking to Pablo Torral, she explained that she
did not attempt to leave the premises for fear that the
appellants would make good their threats to kill her should
she do so. Her fear is not baseless as the appellants knew
where she resided and they had earlier announced that
their intention in looking for Lolita's cousin was to kill him
on sight. Certainly, fear has been known to render people
immobile. Indeed, appeals to the fears of an individual,
such as by threats to kill or similar threats, are equivalent
to the use of actual force or violence which is one of the
elements of the crime of kidnapping under Article 267 (3)
of the Revised Penal Code.
People v. Suriaga, 381 SCRA 159 (2002)
FACTS: Edwin Ramos was cleaning the car of his
older brother, Johnny who was taking care of his 2-year old
daughter, Nicole, playing inside the car. Suriaga, a cousin
of the Ramos brothers, arrived. He was accompanied by his
live-in-partner Rosita. Suriaga requested Edwin if he could
drive the car, but the latter declined, saying he did not
have the keys. Meanwhile, Johnny returned to his house
because a visitor arrived. At this instance, Rosita held
Nicole and cajoled her. Rosita asked Edwin if she could
take Nicole with her to buy barbeque. Having been
acquainted with Rosita for a long time and because he
trusted her, Edwin acceded. When Rosita and the child
left, Suriaga joined them. More than an one hour has
passed but the two failed to return with Nicole. Edwin,
Johnny and his wife, Mercedita, then began searching but
they could not find their daughter and Rosita. Nicole’s
grandfather then receive a call from Suriaga asking for
ransom in the amount of P100,000.00. Johnny immediately
reported the call to the PACC Task Force. The next day,
Suriaga called Mercedita, introduced himself and asked her
if she and her husband would give the amount to which the
latter responded in the positive. Suriaga instructed
Mercidita as to the how the money should be delivered to
him with a warning that if she will not deliver the money,
her daughter would be placed in a plastic bag or thrown in
a garbage can. Thereafter, with the cash money, and while
being tailed by PACC agents, Mercida proceeded to deliver
the money to Suriaga. The PACC agents arrested Suriaga
and his companion Isidera after Mercida gave the money to
them. Prior thereto, Nicole was rescued in a shanty where
Rosita’s sister lived.
HELD: The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the
actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with
indubitable proof of the accused’s intent to effect the
same. And if the person detained is a child, the question
that needs to be addressed is whether there is evidence to
show that in taking the child, there was deprivation of the
child’s liberty and that it was the intention of the accused
to deprive the mother of the child’s custody.
Undoubtedly, the elements of kidnapping for ransom
have been sufficiently established by the prosecution
considering the following circumstances: 1) appellant, a
private individual, took the young Nicole without personally
seeking permission from her father; 2) appellant took the
girl and brought her to a shanty where Rosita’s sister lived,
without informing her parents of their whereabouts; 3) he
detained the child and deprived her of her liberty by failing
to return her to her parents overnight and the following
day; and 4) he demanded a ransom of P100,000.00 through
telephone calls and gave instructions where and how it
should be delivered.
People v. Acbangin, 337 SCRA 454 (2000)
FACTS: Jocelyn brought four-year old
Sweet to Niu’s house without the consent of the child’s
father Danilo Acbangin. When Danilo asked Jocelyn about
her daughter who he last saw playing in the latters house,
Jocelyn denied knowing of the child's whereabouts. After 2
days, Jocelyn acompanied Danilo, Sweet's grandfather and
police officers to Niu's house. The latter voluntarily turned
Sweet over to her father and the policemen. Sweet was
well-dressed and smiling. She ran to her father and
embraced him.
HELD: In cases of kidnapping, if the person
detained is a child, the question is whether there was
actual deprivation of the child's liberty, and whether it was
the intention of the accused to deprive the parents of the
custody of the child.
Sweet was deprived of her liberty. True, she was
treated well. However, there is still kidnapping. For there
to be kidnapping, it is not necessary that the victim be
placed in an enclosure. It is enough that the victim is
restrained from going home. Given Sweet's tender age,
when Jocelyn left her in Niu's house, at a distant place in
Tondo, Manila, unknown to her, she deprived Sweet of the
freedom to leave the house at will. It is not necessary that
the detention be prolonged.
The intention to deprive Sweet's parents of her
custody is indicated by Jocelyn's hesitation for two days to
disclose Sweet's whereabouts and more so by her actual
taking of the child. Jocelyn's motive at this point is not
relevant. It is not an element of the crime.
People v. Pavillare, 329 SCRA 684 (2000)
FACTS: Sukhjinder Singh, an Indian national was on
his way back to his parked motorcycle when three men
blocked his way. Pavillare, who was one of them, accused
Singh of having raped the woman inside a Kia taxi cab
parked nearby. Singh denied the accusation, the three men
nevertheless forced him inside the cab and brought him in
Quezon City. One of the abductors took the key to his
motorcycle and drove it alongside the cab. Singh was
beaten up and P100,000.00 was demanded for his release.
Singh told them that he only had P5,000.00 with him.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
97
Pavillare then forced him to give the phone numbers of his
relatives so they can make their demand from them. Singh
gave the phone number of his cousin Lakhvir Singh and then
Pavillare made the call. The amount of 25,000.00 was
agreed upon. An uncle and his cousin Lakhvir arrived in a
motorcycle and together with the kidnappers they entered
a mini-grocery. Later the kidnappers brought the
complainant to the mini-grocery where he met his
relatives. The ransom money was handed to the appellant.
He counted the money and then, together with his cohorts,
immediately left the scene. Pavillare argues that he should
have been convicted of simple robbery and not kidnapping
with ransom because the evidence proves that the prime
motive of the Pavillare and his companions is to obtain
money and that the complainant was detained only for two
hours:
HELD: The duration of the detention even if only for
a few hours does not alter the nature of the crime
committed. The crime of kidnapping is committed by
depriving the victim of liberty whether he is placed in an
enclosure or simply restrained from going home. As
squarely expressed in Article 267 of the RPC the penalty of
death is imposable where the detention is committed for
the purpose of extorting ransom, and the duration of the
detention is not material.
Ransom
People v. Castro, 385 SCRA 24
FACTS: Saez was informed by his siblings that
Castro called up to say that the latter wanted to speak with
Saez. After taking a quick shower, Saez repaired to
Castro’s residence. Just as Castro opened the gate for
Saez, Castro pointed and fired his 9 mm. handgun at Saez,
its bullet whizzing by his right ear. Saez was thrown
against the concrete wall of the house. He was then taken
inside the house. Reyes and Jde los Angeles, joined Castro
in mauling Saez. Castro hit Saez with an iron club. At
around nine o’clock in the evening, Castro handed over to
him a phone and ordered him to tell his family to raise
twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos. Fifteen minutes
later, Castro gave back the phone to Saez and told him to
instruct the person on the other line to bring the money to
a place near a hospital. About half an hour later, another
call was placed to follow-up the demand. Turning to de los
Angeles and Reyes, Castro instructed the two to go to the
“drop-off point.” Nobody showed up. After an hour, Saez
was ordered to call again, this time to designate another
place where the money was to be delivered. Castro told
Saez to have his relatives bring the money to the vicinity of
the Aglipay Church in Caridad. Again, no meeting
materialized. Around midnight, Castro, de los Angeles and
Reyes left the house and stayed by the gate conversing
with one another. The victim took the opportunity to flee.
He was able to untie his legs and tackle the stairs towards
the second storey. He jumped out through the window but
the noise he created caught the attention of Castro. The
latter fired his gun, hitting the fleeing victim and planting
a bullet in his buttocks. His plea for help alarmed some
barangay officials who immediately came to his rescue and
brought him to the nearest hospital
HELD: The corpus delicti in the crime of
kidnapping for ransom is the fact that an individual has
been in any manner deprived of his liberty for the purpose
of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.
Whether or not the ransom is actually paid to or received
by the perpetrators is of no moment. In People vs.
Salimbago, the Court stressed:
“x x x No specific form of ransom is
required to consummate the felony of
kidnapping for ransom so long as it was
intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for
the victim’s freedom. In municipal criminal
law, ransom refers to the money, price or
consideration paid or demanded for redemption
of a captured person or persons, a payment
that releases from captivity. Neither actual
demand for nor actual payment of ransom is
necessary for the crime to be committed.”
People v. Ejandra, 429 SCRA 364
FACTS: While Ed Henderson, the 9-year old son of
spouses Eddie and Marileen Tan was on his way back to the
house of his tutor in Chinese language to wait for his
father, accused Tampos, armed with a revolver, chased
and overtook the boy. Tampos then ordered the boy to
proceed to a motorcycle parked nearby where appellants
Ejandra and Revilla were waiting. Ejandra covered Ed
Henderson's mouth with his hand, pointed his gun at the
boy and warned the latter not to shout. Thereafter,
Tampos ordered Ed Henderson to board the motorcycle, or
else, he would be shot. Ed was brought to a house where
one Huera, and Calunod was. Ed Henderson was ordered to
write down his father's telephone number, as well as that
of their house and their store. Eddie then received a call
through his home phone, informing him that his son had
been kidnapped. Several calls were made and a reduced
ransom of P548,000 for the safe release of Ed Henderson
was eventually agreed upon. Eddie was then instructed to
place the money in a newspaper and to bring the money to
the parking lot in front of a Church. Eddie did as he was
told. He proceeded to the designated place. When Calunod
approached and called Eddie, the latter handed over the
plastic bag which contained the money. Eddie asked
Calunod how his son was. Calunod told Eddie not to worry
because the latter would bring the boy home. Calunod then
walked to the gate of the church and went home to wait
for his son's return. Ed Henderson returned on board a taxi
and was soon reunited with his waiting family. Ejandra,
Calunod, Tampos and Revilla were convicted of kidnapping
for ransom and were sentenced to suffer the death
penalty.
HELD: Since all the foregoing facts indubitably
show that the appellants conspired to kidnap the victim for
ransom, the Court affirmed the conviction of Ejandra,
Calunod, Tampos and Revilla of kidnapping for ransom.
To warrant an imposition of the death penalty for
the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for
ransom, the prosecution must prove the following beyond
reasonable doubt: (a) intent on the part of the accused to
deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of
the victim of his liberty; and, (c) motive of the accused,
which is ransom for the victim or other person for the
release of the victim. The purpose of the offender in
extorting ransom is a qualifying circumstance which may be
proven by his words and overt acts before, during and after
the kidnapping and detention of the victim. Neither actual
demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for
the crime to be committed. Ransom, as employed in the
law, is so used in its common or ordinary sense; meaning, a
sum of money or other thing of value, price, or
consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a
kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
98
from captivity. It may include benefits not necessarily
pecuniary which may accrue to the kidnapper as a
condition for the victim's release. n this case, the
appellants not only demanded but also received ransom for
the release of the victim. The trial court correctly
sentenced the appellants to death.
Mandatory Imposition of Death
Penalty
People v. Morales, 427 SCRA 765
FACTS: Jefferson Tan was with his siblings, Jessie
Anthony and Joanna Tan, his cousin, Malou and their
driver, Cesar on board the family L-300 van. Along the
highway, the vehicle slowed down to steer clear of a
damaged portion of the road when Malit suddenly poked a
gun at Cesar. Simultaneously, Morales, Esguerra, and
Saldaña entered the van. Esguerra took the driver's seat
and the other two blindfolded the five victims. Jefferson
was eventually sent home to get the 2M ransom which was
later reduced to 1.5M, from his father, Feliciano. Jefferson
was instructed to bring the ransom to a snack center.
Feliciano did not allow his son to bring the ransom and
explained to the kidnappers that Jefferson was in shock
and could not go. When asked about the ransom money, he
told the caller that he could only give P92,000. The caller
agreed. Later, at the place where the kidnappers
instructed Feliciano to go, the latter gave the money and
he was handed the keys to the L-300 van where his children
are.
HELD: The elements of the crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention are the following: (a) the
accused is a private individual; (b) the accused kidnaps or
detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his
liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and
(d) in the commission of the offense, any of the four
circumstances mentioned in Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code are present. The imposition of the death
penalty is mandatory if the kidnapping was committed for
the purpose of extorting ransom. In the instant case,
appellants cannot escape the penalty of death, inasmuch as
it was sufficiently alleged and indubitably proven that the
kidnapping had been committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom.
Article 268. Slight illegal detention
Elements:
1. Offender is a private individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any
other manner deprives him of his liberty.
3. The act of kidnapping or detention is
illegal;
4. The crime is committed without the
attendance of any of the circumstances
enumerated in Article 267.
 The same penalty for slight illegal
detention shall be incurred by anyone who shall
furnish the place for the perpetration of the
crime. (normally, this is an accomplice but under
this article he is treated as co-principal)
 Privileged mitigating circumstance
(penalty lower by one degree) – if the offender:
o Voluntarily releases the
person so kidnapped or detained within
three days from the commencement of the
detention;
o Without having attained
the purpose intended; and
o Before the institution of
criminal proceedings against him.
 Voluntary release is not a privileged
mitigating circumstance if the victim is woman,
because the detention would then be punished
under Article 267. Voluntary release is not
mitigating under that article.
Article 269. Unlawful arrest
Elements:
1. Offender arrests or detains another
person;
2. The purpose of the offender is to deliver
him to the proper authorities;
3. The arrest or detention is not authorized
by law or there is no reasonable ground therefor.
 Unlawful arrests by public officers
should be punished under Article 124, if the
public officer has the legal authority to arrest and
detain a person, but the arrest is without legal
ground. If the public officer has no authority to
arrest and detain a person, or if he did not act in
his official capacity, he should be punished for
unlawful arrest under this article. Compare with
art. 267
 The motive of the person arresting
is controlling. If his purpose is to deliver to
proper authorities, this article applies.
Absence of this motive may be shown by the
length of time the victim is detained.
 If the purpose of delivering to
proper authorities is not shown, the person may
be liable for other illegal detention (under 267 or
268, depending on the circumstances of the
case)
Unlawful arrest Delay of delivery of
detained persons
The detention is not The detention is for some
authorized by law legal ground
Crime is committed by Crime is committed by failing
making an arrest not to deliver such persons to
authorized by law the proper judicial authority
within a certain period of
time
Bar Questions
Arbitrary Detention; Elements; Grounds (2006)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
99
1. What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary
detention? Explain each. (2.5.%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The 3 ways of arbitrary detention are:
a) Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without legal
ground committed by any public officer or employee who,
without legal grounds, detains a person (Art. 124, Revised
Penal Code).
b) Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper
judicial authorities which is committed by a public officer or
employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground
and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities within the period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes
or offense punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
eighteen hours (18), for crimes or offenses punishable by
correctional facilities, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36)
hours for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or
capital penalties, or their equivalent (Art. 125, Revised Penal
Code).
c) Delaying release is committed by any public officer or
employee who delays the release for the period of time
specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive
order for the release of the prisoner, or unduly delays the
service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the
proceedings upon any petition for
the liberation of such person (Art. 126, Revised Penal Code).
2. What are the legal grounds for detention? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other
ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient
in a hospital shall be considered legal grounds for the
detention of any person (Art. 124[2], Revised Penal Code).
3. When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private
person considered lawful? Explain. (5%)
1. When the arrest by a peace officer is made pursuant to a
valid warrant.
2. A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
i. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense,
ii. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to
be arrested has committed it, and
iii. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case
is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another (Sec. 5, Rule 113,1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure).
Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a
minor
Elements:
1. Offender is entrusted with the custody of a
minor person (whether over or under seven years
but less than 21 years of age);
2. He deliberately fails to restore the said minor
to his parents or guardians.
 What is punished is the deliberate
failure of the custodian of the minor to restore
the latter to his parents or guardians.
 When the crime is committed by
the father or mother of the minor, the penalty is
arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 300 pesos
or both.
Article 270 Article 267
Offender is entrusted with The offender is not
the custody of the minor entrusted with the custody
of the minor
People vs. Ty
A mother left her sick child in a clinic and only came back
to claim the child five years later. Unfortunately, the
doctors had already entrusted the child to a guardian.
HELD: Two elements must concur in the crime of
kidnapping of a minor: (a) the offender had been entrusted
with the custody of the minor; and (b) the offender
DELIBERATELY fails to restore said minor to his parents or
legal guardian. In the case at bar, it is evident that there
was no deliberate refusal or failure to return the minor as
it was proven that the doctors tried their best to locate the
child, even seeking NBI’s assistance along the way.
People vs. Gutierrez (1991)
Lilia Gutierrez was convicted by the RTC of Manila of the
crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The minor was Hazel
Elpedes, her 2 and a half-year-old nephew (yup, Hazel’s a
guy in this story), whom Gutierrez allegedly sold to the
spouses Felipe for P250 (Lilia claims she did it to spite her
husband, brother of Hazel’s mom, who had abandoned
her).
HELD: The offense of kidnapping and failure to return a
minor under Art. 270 of the RPC consists of 2 elements:
 the offender has been entrusted with
the custody of a minor person, and
 the offender deliberately fails to
restore said minor to his parents or guardians.
It is clear that Gutierrez admitted the existence of the first
element (she asked her in-laws for permission to take the
boy out).
The second element has likewise been established. In the
first place, Gutierrez's own conduct in leading the boy’s
father and police to the Felipe residence in Intramuros
indicated her awareness of the probable whereabouts of
the child. The logical conclusion is that she must have been
the person responsible for originally leaving the child with
the Felipe spouses. In the second place, the precise motive
that Gutierrez might have had for bringing Hazel Elpedes to
the Felipe spouses and leaving him with them, apparently
for an indefinite period, is not an indispensable element of
the offense charged. All that was necessary for the
prosecution to prove was that she had deliberately failed
to return the minor to his parents.
People vs. Reyes (1996)
Delia Reyes, maid of the Mohamad spouses, was convicted
of kidnapping one of their daughters, Asnia. After spending
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
100
300-grand on a manhunt, Asnia was recovered a couple of
months later. Reyes claims that, while out with Asnia, she
ran into her sister who informed her of their mom’s death;
Reyes then allegedly had a friend take Asnia home while
she (Reyes) and her sister went to La Union for their mom’s
wake (basically, she’s blaming somebody else).
HELD: Reyes's negligence is wanton and gross as to amount
to a deliberate and willful scheme to take the child away
from her parents. This willfulness is sufficiently established
by the following circumstances: (1) appellant lured Asnia
and her sister into leaving their house; (2) she instructed
the two elder sisters to go home but kept the youngest
with her; (3) she and Asnia could not be located despite
extensive search by the authorities and the widespread
publicity generated through the television, radio and print
media; (4) the child was found two months later and only
after the arrest of appellant; and (5) appellant harbored
ill-feelings against the Mohamads family (she admitted
that, at one point, the Mohamads did not pay her salary for
5 months when she worked for them in 1989).
People vs. Borromeo (2000)
Borromeo alias "Sonny", a bakery helper of Rowena who had
been discharged by her due to negative attitude problems,
kidnapped her 1-year and 7-months old son. The next day,
Sonny demanded a P300,000 ransom. He was convicted of
kidnapping a minor for ransom and was sentenced to death.
HELD: There is no question that the elements of kidnapping
for ransom were sufficiently established: (a) the accused is
a private individual; (b) the accused kidnapped or detained
the victim and deprived him of his liberty; and, (c) the
deprivation of the victim's liberty was illegal. As provided
for in Art. 267 of the RPC as amended, the imposition of
the death penalty is mandatory if the victim is a minor and
also, if the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.
IN CAB, the minority of Kenneth was never disputed. The
minority and the demand for the payment of ransom, both
specifically described in the Information, were clearly
established by the State, free of any scintilla of doubt.
People v. Borromeo (2000)
FACTS: Borromeo alias "Sonny", a bakery helper
of Rowena who had been discharged by her due to negative
attitude problems, kidnapped her 1-year and 7-months old
son. The next day, Sonny demanded a P300,000 ransom. He
was convicted of kidnapping a minor for ransom and was
sentenced to death.
HELD: There is no question that the elements of
kidnapping for ransom were sufficiently established: (a) the
accused is a private individual; (b) the accused kidnapped
or detained the victim and deprived him of his liberty; and,
(c) the deprivation of the victim's liberty was illegal. As
provided for in Art. 267 of the RPC as amended, the
imposition of the death penalty is mandatory if the victim
is a minor and also, if the kidnapping was committed for
the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any
other person.
IN CAB, the minority of Kenneth was never
disputed. The minority and the demand for the payment of
ransom, both specifically described in the Information,
were clearly established by the State, free of any scintilla
of doubt.
People v. Pastrana, 387 SCRA 342
FACTS: Postejo, working as a domestic helper in
Canada, has four children namely, Jenny, Doroteo, Aresola,
and 9-year old Willy. Erma was introduced by her sister to
spouses Frias who informed her that their daughter,
Pastrana can help process Willy's travel documents to
Canada. Erma agreed to hand the processing of her son's
papers. In one of the telephone conversations of Erma and
Pastrana, the latter informed Erma that Willy was suffering
from acute bronchitis. Erna sent money for the medical
treatment of his son. Pastrana then fetched Willy and
Aresola from their residence in Caloocan and brought them
to her apartment. Thought she never brought Willy to a
hospital for treatment, Pastrana kept on demanding money
from Erma which include the amount of P60,000.00 for the
installation of a water purifier in her apartment allegedly
for Willy's safety, and for additional money for her job
application in Singapore. Erna, however, refused to
transmit the amounts demanded by Pastrana and ordered
the return of Willy to their residence in Caloocan. Pastrana
deliberately failed to return Willy for 7 days until the latter
disappeared while allegedly playing in front of Pastrana’s
apartment.
HELD: Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code has two
essential elements, namely: (1) the offender is entrusted
with the custody of a minor person; and (2) the offender
deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or
guardians. What is actually being punished is not the
kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure of
the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his
parents or guardians. The word deliberate as used in
Article 270 must imply something more than mere
negligence — it must be premeditated, headstrong,
foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong. In
the case at bar, there is no question that accused-appellant
was entrusted with the custody of 9-year old Willy. Erma
and her children trusted accused-appellant that they sent
her money for the processing of Willy's travel documents,
and more importantly, they allowed Willy to stay in her
apartment. As to the second element, It was this
deliberate failure of accused-appellant to return custody of
Willy to his relatives that gave rise to her culpability under
Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code. The disappearance
of Willy and accused-appellant's inability to return him to
Caloocan by reason thereof has no bearing on the crime
charged as it was her willful disobedience to Erma's order
that consummated the crime.
People v. Bernardo, 378 SCRA 708
FACTS: While Rosita was undergoing
medical check up inside a hospital, her two daughters
waited at the lobby. Roselle was seating on a bench with
her 15-day old sister on her lap. Bernardo befriended
Roselle and later gave her P3.00 and asked her to buy ice
water. Thereafter, Bernardo took the baby from Roselle.
Roselle was not able to find ice water for sale and on her
way back to the hospital, she saw Bernardo running away
with her baby sister. Roselle pulled and pulled Bernardo's
skirt to prevent the latter from getting away. Torres saw
Bernardo carrying a child and struggling with Roselle.
Roselle begged Torres to help her because her mother was
at the hospital and the accused was getting her baby sister.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
101
Torres took the baby from the Bernardo and entrusted the
baby to his wife. Then he led Bernardo and Roselle to the
hospital to look for Rosita who confirmed that she was the
mother of the baby. The RTC convicted Bernardo of the
crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under
Article 270 of the RPC.
HELD: The essential element of the crime of
kidnapping and failure to return a minor is that the
offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor, but
what is actually being punished is not the kidnapping of the
minor but rather the deliberate failure of the custodian of
the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.
Indeed, the word deliberate as used in Article 270 of the
Revised Penal Code must imply something more than mere
negligence — it must be premeditated, headstrong,
foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong.
When Roselle entrusted Roselyn to appellant before setting
out on an errand for appellant to look for ice water, the
first element was accomplished and when appellant
refused to return the baby to Roselle despite her
continuous pleas, the crime was effectively accomplished.
In fine, we agree with the trial court's finding that
appellant is guilty of the crime of kidnapping and failure to
return a minor.
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as
follows: in coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the
employment of violence or serious intimidation
approximating violence, without authority of law, to prevent
a person from doing something not prohibited by law or to
compel him to do something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability
is the actual restraint or locking up of a person, thereby
depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there
was no intent to lock up or detain the offended party
unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not committed.
Kidnapping (2002)
A and B were legally separated. Their child C, a minor, was
placed in the custody of A the mother, subject to monthly
visitations by B, his father. On one occasion, when B had C
in his company, B decided not to return C to his mother.
Instead, B took C with him to the United States where he
intended for them to reside permanently. What crime, if any,
did B commit? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a
minor under Article 271, in relation to Article 270, of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended. Article 271 expressly
penalizes any parent who shall take from and deliberately
fail to restore his or her minor child to the parent or
guardian to whom custody of the minor has been placed.
Since the custody of C, the minor, has been given to the
mother and B has only the right of monthly visitation, the
latter's act of taking C to the United Slates, to reside there
permanently, constitutes a violation of said provisions of law.
Kidnapping (2006)
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles factory of
Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and
miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him and loaded him
in a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they will only teach
Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to a
fishpond in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil and
Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in
their shack because he was running from the NBI. The trio
then left in Mario's car for Manila where they called up
Luke's family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they
give a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them, because
of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio and
TV. Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked,
especially when the announcer stated that there is a shoot-
to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to
the seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they smashed his
head with a shovel and buried him in the sand. However,
they were seen by a barangay kagawad who arrested them
and brought them to the police station. Upon interrogation,
they confessed and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and
Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4
were arrested and charged. What crime or crimes did the 6
suspects commit? (5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with
homicide. The original intention was to demand ransom from
the family with the threat of killing. As a consequence of the
kidnapping, however, Luke was killed. Thus, the victim was
deprived of his freedom and the subsequent killing, though
committed by another person, was a consequence of the
detention. Hence, this properly qualified the crime as the
special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with
homicide (People v. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554, October 1,
2003; Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and
buried the latter in the sand committed murder qualified by
treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable
for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they
aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were
informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal
Code).
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the
criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act
of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian
humility" does not constitute a crime.
Alternative Answer:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with
ransom. After kidnapping Luke, they demanded ransom with
the threat of killing him. However, the killing of Luke is
separate from the kidnapping having been committed by
other persons, who had nothing to do with the kidnapping,
and who will be liable for a different crime (Penultimate par.
of Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and
buried the latter in the sand committed murder qualified by
treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable
for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they
aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were
informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal
Code).
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the
criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act
of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian
humility" does not constitute a crime.
Kidnapping w/ Homicide (2005)
Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-
week old son of the spouses Martin and Pops Kuripot. When
Paz learned that her 70 year-old mother was seriously ill, she
asked Martin for a cash advance of P1,000.00 but Martin
refused. One morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martin’s son
with stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with
masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in the
afternoon, she demanded P5,000.00 as ransom for the
release of his son. Martin did not pay the ransom.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
102
Subsequently, Paz disappeared. After a couple of days,
Martin discovered the box in the attic with his child already
dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of
asphyxiation barely three minutes after the box was sealed.
What crime or crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Paz committed the composite crime of kidnapping with
homicide under Art. 267, RFC as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
Under the law, any person who shall detain another or in
any manner deprive him of liberty and the victim dies as a
consequence is liable for kidnapping with homicide and shall
be penalized with the maximum penalty. In this case,
notwithstanding the fact that the one-week old child was
merely kept in the attic of his house, gagged with stockings
and placed in a box sealed with tape, the deprivation of
liberty and the intention to kill becomes apparent. Though it
may appear that the means employed by Paz was attended
by treachery (killing of an infant), nevertheless, a separate
charge of murder will not be proper in view of the
amendment. Here, the term "homicide" is used in its generic
sense and covers all forms of killing whether in the nature of
murder or otherwise. It is of no moment that the evidence
shows the death of the child took place three minutes after
the box was sealed and the demand for the ransom took
place in the afternoon. The intention is controlling here, that
is, ransom was demanded.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Murder qualified by treachery because the victim was only
one week old. The offense was attended with the
aggravating circumstance of lack of respect due to the age
of the victim, cruelty and abuse of confidence. In People v.
Lora (G.R. No, L-49430, March 30, 1982), the Court found
that a child subjected to similar treatment as the infant in
this case would have died instantly, negating any intent to
kidnap or detain when ransom was sought. Demand for
ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping with
murder because the demand was merely a scheme by the
offender (Paz) to conceal the body of her victim.
Kidnapping; Effects; Voluntary Release (2004)
DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the
second day, DAN released CHU even before any criminal
information was filed against him. At the trial of his case,
DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal
liability since he released the child before the lapse of the 3-
day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping
were instituted. Will DAN's defense prosper? Reason briefly.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the
offender of the offended party in kidnapping is not
absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and immaterial
in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime
committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention under
Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such circumstance
does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only
in the crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 (Asistio v.
San Diego, 10 SCRA 673 [1964])
Kidnapping; Illegal Detention; Minority (2006)
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich
classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently
wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another
man, rejected him. This angered Job, Sometime in
September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on
their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed
them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought
them to an abandoned warehouse where they forced them
to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a
nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After
satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down
a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and
Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the
duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.
1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and
Nonoy? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 1) kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide and rape for the subsequent death
of Dang, and 2) kidnapping with rape against her sister, Lyn.
The victims, who were kidnapped and detained, were
subsequently raped and killed (as regards Dang) in the
course of their detention. The composite crime is committed
regardless of whether the subsequent crimes were purposely
sought or merely an afterthought (People v. Larranaga, G.R.
Nos. 138874-5, Februarys, 2004).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 2 counts of the complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape (Art. 342, Revised Penal Code)
and the separate offense of murder against Dang. The crime
committed is abduction because there was lewd design when
they took the victims away and subsequently raped them.
The killing thereafter, constitutes the separate offense of
murder qualified by treachery.
2. What penalties should be imposed on them?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the death penalty has already been prohibited,
reclusion perpetua is the appropriate penalty (RA. 9346). In
the case of the minor Nonoy, his penalty shall be one degree
lower (Art. 68, Revised Penal Code).
3. Will Nonoy's minority exculpate him? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act, which
retroacts to the date that the crime was committed, Nonoy
will be exculpated if he was 15 years old or below. However,
if he was above 15 years old but below 18 years of age, he
will be liable if he acted with discernment. As the problem
shows that Nonoy acted with discernment, he will be entitled
to a suspension of sentence.(NOTABENE: R.A. 9344 is
outside the coverage of the examination)
4. Is the non-recovery of Lyn's body material to the
criminal liability of Job and Nonoy? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the
criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because the corpus delicti
of the crime which is kidnapping with rape of Lyn has been
duly proven.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the
criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because the corpus delicti
of the crime which is forcible abduction with rape of Lyn has
been duly proven.
Kidnapping; Proposal to Kidnap (1996)
Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of
money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so that he may
succeed to raping her and eventually making her accede to
marry him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo
failed to put up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up
the money he required, he reported Edgardo to the police.
May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping
inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap or restrain the liberty of
the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
103
done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the living separately and custody has been given to
girl, which is only a preparatory act and not an overt act. one of them.
The attempt to commit a felony commences with the
commission of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to
commit kidnapping is not a crime.
Kidnapping; Serious Illegal Detention (1997)
Article 272. Slavery
A and B conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and
detained him. The duo then called up C's wife informing her Elements:
that they had her husband and would release him only if she
paid a ransom in the amount of P10,000,000 and that, if she 1. Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains
were to fail, they would kill him. The next day, C, who had a human being;
just recovered from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he 2. The purpose of the offender is to enslave
might die if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B
such human being.
released C during the early morning of the third day of
detention. Charged with kidnapping and serious illegal
detention provided in Article 267, RPC, A and B filed a  If the purpose of the offender is to
petition for bail. They contended that since they had assign the offended party to some immoral traffic
voluntarily released C within three days from (prostitution), the penalty is higher.
commencement of the detention, without having been paid  Differentiated from kidnapping: If
any amount of the ransom demanded and before the the purpose is to enslave the victim, the crime is
institution of criminal proceedings against them, the crime slavery; otherwise the crime is kidnapping or
committed was only slight illegal detention prescribed in
illegal detention.
Article 268, RPC. After hearing, the trial court found the
evidence of guilt to be strong and therefore denied the
petition for bail. On appeal, the only issue was: Was the
crime committed kidnapping and serious detention or slight Article 273. Exploitation of child labor
Illegal detention? Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Elements:
The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and serious
illegal detention because they made a demand for ransom 1. Offender retains a minor in his services;
and threatened to kill C if the latter's wife did not pay the
2. It is against the will of the minor;
same. Without the demand for ransom, the crime could have
been slight illegal detention only. The contention of A and B
3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing
that they had voluntary released C within three days from himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
the commencement of the detention is immaterial as they guardian or person entrusted with the custody of
are charged with a crime where the penalty prescribed is such minor.
death (Asistio vs. San Diego. 10SCRA673). They were
properly denied bail because the trial court found that the  The existence of an indebtedness
evidence of guilt in the information for kidnapping and constitutes no legal justification for holding a
serious Illegal detention is strong. person and depriving him of his freedom to live
where he wills.
Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his
home Article 274. Services rendered under
compulsion in payment of debt
Elements:
Elements:
1. A minor (whether over or under seven years
of age) is living in the home of his parents or 1. Offender compels a debtor to work for him,
guardians or the person entrusted with his either as household servant or farm laborer;
custody; 2. It is against the debtor’s will;
2. Offender induces said minor to abandon 3. The purpose is to require or enforce the
such home. payment of a debt.

 The inducement must be actual,

Service under Exploitation of child
committed with criminal intent, and determined compulsion labor
by a will to cause damage. Does not distinguish Victim must be a minor
 It is not necessary that the minor whether the victim is a
actually abandons his home, as long as there is minor or not
inducement. The debtor himself is the The minor is compelled to
 The minor should not leave his one compelled to work for render services for the
home of his own free will. the offender supposed debt of his parent
 Father or mother may commit this or guardian
crime (as well as Article 270), if the parents are Limited to household work Service is not limited
or farm labor

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

104

Article 275. Abandonment of persons in danger
and abandonment of one’s own victim
Acts punishable:
1. Failing to render assistance to any person
whom the offender finds in an uninhabited place
wounded or in danger of dying when he can
render such assistance without detriment to
himself, unless such omission shall constitute a
more serious offense.
Elements:
a. The place is not inhabited;
b. Accused found there a person
wounded or in danger of dying;
c. Accused can render assistance
without detriment to himself;
d. Accused fails to render assistance.
2. Failing to help or render assistance to
another whom the offender has accidentally
wounded or injured;
3. By failing to deliver a child, under seven
years of age, whom the offender has found
abandoned, to the authorities or to his family, or
by failing to take him to a safe place.
 If a person intentionally wounds
another and leaves him in an uninhabited place,
he shall not be liable under this article because
be did not FIND him wounded or in danger of
dying.
 It is immaterial that the offender
did not know that the child is under seven years.
 The child under seven must be
found by the accused in an unsafe place.
Lamera vs. CA
An owner-type jeep driven by Lamera hit and bumped a
tricycle, damaging the said tricycle and injuring the driver
and passenger in the process. Two separate informations
were filed, one for reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property and multiple physical injuries and
another one for abandonment of one’s victim.
HELD: The rule on double jeopardy cannot be applied in
this case because the two informations were for separate
offenses— the first falls under quasi-offenses while the
second is a crime against security.
Article 276. Abandoning a minor
Elements:
1. Offender has the custody of a child;
2. The child is under seven years of age;
3. He abandons such child;
4. He has no intent to kill the child when
the latter is abandoned.
Circumstances qualifying the offense:
1. When the death of the minor resulted from
such abandonment; or
2. If the life of the minor was in danger
because of the abandonment.
 When there is intent to kill, this
article does not apply. The purpose in
abandoning the minor must be to avoid the
obligation of taking care of said minor.
 The ruling that intent to kill is
presumed from the death of the victim is
applicable only to crimes against persons, and
not to crimes against security, particularly the
crime in this article.
 A permanent, conscious and
deliberate abandonment is required in this article.
There must be an interruption of the care and
protection the minor needs by reason of his age.
 Parents guilty of abandonment shall
be deprived of their parental authority.
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by the
person entrusted with his custody; indifference
of parents
Acts punishable:
1. Delivering a minor to a public institution or
other persons without the consent of the one
who entrusted such minor to the care of the
offender or, in the absence of that one, without
the consent of the proper authorities;
Elements:
a. Offender has charge of the rearing
or education of a minor;
b. He delivers said minor to a public
institution or other persons;
c. The one who entrusted such child
to the offender has not consented to such
act; or if the one who entrusted such child to
the offender is absent, the proper authorities
have not consented to it.
2. Neglecting his (offender’s) children by not
giving them the education which their station in
life requires and financial condition permits.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
105
 Elements:
a. Offender is a parent;
b. He neglects his children by not giving them
education;
c. His station in life requires such education
and his financial condition permits it.
Article 276 Article 277
The custody of the offender The custody of the offender
is stated in general is specific, that is, the
custody for the rearing or
education of the minor
The minor is under 7 years The minor is under 21 years
of age of age
Minor is abandoned in such The minor is delivered to a
as way as to deprive him of public institution or other
the care and protection that person
his tender years need
 Obligation to educate children
terminates, if the mother and children refuse
without good reason to live with the accused.
 Failure to give education must be
due to deliberate desire to evade such obligation.
If the parents cannot give education because
they had no means to do so, then they will not
be liable under this article.
Article 278. Exploitation of minors
Acts punishable:
1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 years of
age to perform any dangerous feat of balancing,
physical strength or contortion, the offender
being any person;
2. Employing children under 16 years of age
who are not the children or descendants of the
offender in exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope-
walker, diver, or wild-animal tamer, the offender
being an acrobat, etc., or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling;
3. Employing any descendant under 12 years of
age in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in the
next preceding paragraph, the offender being
engaged in any of the said callings;
4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age
gratuitously to any person following any of the
callings enumerated in paragraph 2, or to any
habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender being an
ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted
in any capacity with the care of such child; and
5. Inducing any child under 16 years of age to
abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians,
curators or teachers to follow any person
engaged in any of the callings mentioned in
paragraph 2 or to accompany any habitual
vagrant or beggar, the offender being any
person.
Exploitation of minors Inducing a minor to
(par. 5) abandon his home
Purpose of inducing minor is No such purpose
to abandon home is to
follow any person engaged
in any of the callings of
being an acrobat, gymnast,
etc.
Minor under 16 years of age Minor under 21 years of age
 If the delivery of the child to any
person following any of the callings enumerated,
is made in consideration of any price,
compensation or promise, the penalty is higher.
 The offender shall be deprived of
parental authority or guardianship.
 Exploitation of minors refers to acts
endangering the life or safety of the minor.
R.A. 7610
Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act
A. CHILD PROSTITUTION
Who are “children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse”?
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or
any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed
to be children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse.
Who are punishable?
1. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce
child prostitution, which include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
b. Inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
c. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to
procure a child as prostitute;
d. Threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or
e. Giving monetary consideration, goods or other
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage
such child in prostitution.
2. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
subject to other sexual abuse;
- If the victim is under 12, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted for rape and or lascivious conduct
under the RPC as the case may be
- However, the penalty for lascivious conduct when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
106
 be higher (reclusion temporal in its medium
period)
3. Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom,
whether as manager or owner of the establishment where
the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar,
resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a
cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the
activity for which the license has been issued to said
establishment.
When is there attempt to commit child prostitution?
A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals of
an attempt to commit the crime of child prostitution,
committed as follows:
1. Attempt of (1) above  When any person who, not being
a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child
inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel,
pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments,
vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution
and other sexual abuse; or
2. Attempt of (2) above  When any person is receiving
services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage
clinic, health club and other similar establishments.
B. CHILD TRAFFICKING
What is child trafficking?
Child trafficking is committed by a person trading and
dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of
buying and selling of a child for money, or for any other
consideration, or barter.
When is there attempt to commit child trafficking?
(An attempt is punishable by a penalty two degrees lower
than the penalty for the consummated offense)
There is an attempt to commit child trafficking:
1. When a child travels alone to a foreign country without
valid reason therefor and without clearance issued by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development or written
permit or justification from the child's parents or legal
guardian;
2. When a person, agency, establishment or child-caring
institution recruits women or couples to bear a children for
the purpose of child trafficking;
3. When doctor, hospital or clinic official or employee, nurse,
midwife, local civil registrar or any other person simulates
birth for the purpose of child trafficking;
4. When a person engages in the act of finding children
among low-income families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-
care centers, or other child-during institutions who can be
offered for the purpose of child trafficking.
C. OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND INDECENT SHOWS
Who are punishable?
Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce
or coerce a child to perform in obscene exhibitions and
indecent shows, whether live or in video, or model in
obscene publications or pornographic materials or to sell or
distribute the said materials.
D. OTHER PERSONS PUNISHABLE UNDER THE ACT
1. Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for
other conditions prejudicial to the child's development
including those covered by Article 59 of PD 603 (criminal
liability of parents due to abandonment, neglect etc.), but
not covered by the RPC;
2. Any person who shall keep or have in his company a
minor, twelve (12) years or under or who is ten (10) years
or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel,
motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house,
sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort
or similar places UNLESS s/he is related to the minor within
the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond
recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the
performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
3. Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor
to any one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his
company a minor as provided in the preceding paragraph;
4. Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the
operation of any public or private place of accommodation,
whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including
residential places, who allows any person to take along
with him to such place or places any minor herein described;
5. Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate
a street child or any other child to;
- Beg or use begging as a means of living;
- Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or
pushing;
- Conduct any illegal activities
E. WORKING CHILDREN
Who are punishable?
Any person who shall violate any of the provision of the Act
with respect to working children (conditions for the
employment of children under 15, prohibitions on the
employment of children for certain advertisements etc.)
F. CHILDREN OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES
Who are punishable?
Any person who discriminates against children of indigenous
cultural communities
COMMON PENAL PROVISIONS
1. The penalty provided under this Act shall be imposed in
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
107

its maximum period if the offender has been previously
convicted under this Act;
2. When the offender is a corporation, partnership or
association, the officer or employee thereof who is
responsible for the violation of this Act shall suffer the
penalty imposed in its maximum period;
3. The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its
maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant,
parent guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the
second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or
owner of an establishment which has no license to operate
or its license has expired or has been revoked;
4. When the offender is a foreigner, he shall be deported
immediately after service of sentence and forever barred
from entry to the country;
5. The penalty provided for in this Act shall be imposed in its
maximum period if the offender is a public officer or
employee, together with the penalty of disqualification or
suspension depending on the penalty imposed;
6. A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and
administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development and disbursed for the
rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member
of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.
People v. Delantar (2007)
Appellant’s violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of R.A. No. 7610 is as
clear as day. The provision penalizes anyone who engages
in or promotes, facilitates or induces child prostitution
either by: (1) acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
or (2) inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements
or other similar means; or (3) by taking advantage of
influence or relationship to procure a child as a
prostitute; or (4) threatening or using violence towards
a child to engage him as a prostitute; or (5) giving
monetary consideration, goods or other pecuniary
benefits to the child with the intent to engage such
child in prostitution.
The purpose of the law is to provide special protection to
children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development. A child exploited in
prostitution may seem to “consent” to what is being done
to her or him and may appear not to complain. However,
we have held that a child who is “a person below eighteen
years of age or those unable to fully take care of
themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of their age
or mental disability or condition” is incapable of giving
rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
In fact, the absence of free consent is conclusively
presumed when the woman is below the age of twelve
Navarrete v. People (2007)
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA
7610 that must be proven in addition to the
elements of acts of lasciviousness are as follows:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of
age.
“Lascivious conduct” is defined under Section 2 (h) of the
rules and regulations of RA 7610 as:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or
through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or
the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
whether of the same or opposite sex, with
an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the
genitals or pubic area of a person.
Bar Questions
RA 7610 – Child Exploitation (2006)
Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior,
her eldest son, asking for P2,000.00 to complete his
semestral tuition fees preparatory to his final exams in
Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she borrowed
money from her compadre Mang Juan with the assurance to
pay him within 2 months. Two months lapsed but Aling
Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling
Maria that she does not have to pay the loan if she will allow
her youngest 10-year old daughter Annie to work as a
housemaid in his house for 2 months at Pl,000.00 a month.
Despite Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan insisted and
brought Annie to his house to work as a maid. 1. Was a
crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought Annie to
his house as maid for the purpose of repaying her mother's
loan? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of
child labor which is committed by any persons who under
the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of
a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his
service (Art. 273, Revised Penal Code). He can also be liable
as an employer for the employment of a minor below 15 yrs.
old, under Sec. 12, Art. 8 of RA. 7610.
2. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a housemaid
in Mang Juan's household to pay her loan, did he commit a
crime? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of involuntary
servitude for rendering services under compulsion and
payment of debts. This is committed by any person who, in
order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall
compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as
household servant or farm laborer (Art. 274, Revised Penal
Code)
Article 279. Additional penalties for other
offenses
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
108
 The imposition of the penalties
prescribed in the preceding articles shall not
prevent the imposition upon the same person of
the penalty provided for any other felonies
defined and punished by the RPC.
Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling
Elements:
1. Offender is a private person;
2. He enters the dwelling of another;
3. Such entrance is against the latter’s will.
Cases to which the provisions of this article is not
applicable:
1. When the purpose of the entrance is to
prevent serious harm to himself, the occupant or
third persons;
2. When the purpose of the offender in
entering is to render some service to humanity or
justice;
3. Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns
and other public houses while they are open.
Marzalado v. People, 441 SCRA 595 (2004)
FACTS: The petitioner, Marzalado, argues that
the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in
sustaining the lower court, since in the proceedings below,
there was a grave misapprehension of facts by both the
MeTC and RTC in finding that he committed trespass to
dwelling despite the glaring proof that his entry was
justifiable under paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised
Penal Code— to prevent an imminent danger to property.
He stresses that while he did enter the unit, he did so with
the aid of barangay officers and for the sole purpose of
turning off the faucet that was causing the flooding of the
unit.
 Purpose of the law: to protect and preserve the
privacy of one’s dwelling
 If the offender is a public officer or employee,
the entrance into the dwelling against the will of
the occupant is violation of domicile.
 Dwelling – place devoted for rest and comfort, as
distinguished from places devoted to business,
office etc.
 Dwelling includes a room when occupied by
another person (example: room at a boarding
house)
 Against the will – should be against the
presumed or express prohibition of the occupant,
not mere lack of consent. There must be
opposition on the part of the owner of the house
to the entry of the accused.
 However, presumed or implied prohibition is
sufficient (e.g. entrance during the late hour of
the night)
 Prohibition must be existent prior to or at the
time of entrance.
 QUALIFIED TRESPASS: If the offense is
committed by means of violence or intimidation,
the penalty is higher.
 Violence may be against persons or property, but
there are conflicting views as to this statement.
 The violence or intimidation may take place
immediately after the entrance.
 Proof of express prohibition to enter is not
necessary when violence or intimidation is
employed by the offender.
 If there is no overt act of the crime intended to
be committed, the crime is only trespass to
dwelling.
Article 281. Other forms of trespass

HELD: In the prosecution for trespass, the Elements:

material fact or circumstance to be considered is the
occurrence of the trespass. The gravamen of the crime is
violation of possession or the fact of having caused injury 1. Offender enters the closed premises or the
to the right of the possession. fenced estate of another;
As certified by Barangay Lupon Secretary Ragaya, 2. The entrance is made while either of them is
the unit rented by Albano was "forcibly opened by the uninhabited;
owner (Marzalado) because of the strong water pressure 3. The prohibition to enter is manifest;
coming out of the faucet. . . ." As Albano herself admitted,
she and her children already left the unit when the
4. The trespasser has not secured the
electricity supply was cut off in the month of September. permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
Hence, nobody was left to attend to the unit, except
during some nights when Albano's maid slept in the unit.  Premises signifies a distinct and
Clearly, Marzalado, acted for the justified purpose of definite locality. This may include a room, shop,
avoiding further flooding and damage to his mother's building or definite area.
property caused by the open faucet. No criminal intent
could be clearly imputed to petitioner for the remedial
action he had taken. There was an exigency that had to be Trespass to dwelling Other forms of trespass
addressed to avoid damage to the leased unit. There is The offender is a private The offender is any person
nothing culpable concerning Marzalado’s, judgment call to person
enter the unit and turn off the faucet instead of closing the The offender enters a The offender enters a closed
inlet valve as suggested by the OSG. dwelling house premises or a fenced estate
The place entered is The place entered is
inhabited uninhabited

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

109
The act constituting the
crime is entering against the
will of the owner
Prohibition to enter is
express or implied
The act constituting the c.
crime is entering without
securing the permission of
the owner or caretaker
d.
Prohibition to enter must be
manifest
There is a demand for
money or that any other condition is
imposed, even though not unlawful;
The offender attains his
purpose.

2. Making such threat without the offender

Bar Questions
Trespass to Dwelling; Private Persons (2006)
Under what situations may a private person enter any
dwelling, residence, or other establishments without being
liable for trespass to dwelling? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Trespass to dwelling is not applicable to any person who
shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of: a)
Preventing some serious harm to himself, its occupants, or a
third person; and b) Rendering service to humanity or
justice; Any person who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns, and
other public houses, while the same are open will likewise
not be liable (Art. 280, Revised Penal Code).
Tresspass to Dwelling; Rule of Absorption (1994)
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside
the house of Mamerto. Jay. Mamerto's son, saw Dante and
accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his
abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of
his room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted
Mamerto. Jay suffered Injuries which, were it not for the
timely medical attendance, would have caused his death.
Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25
days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated
homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical
injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be
complexed with frustrated homicide because when the
trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious
offense, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater
crime, and the former constitutes an aggravating
circumstance of dwelling (People vs. Abedoza, 53 Phil.788).
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of
Jay.... Dante is guilty of less serious physical injuries for the
wounds sustained by Mamerto...
Article 282. Grave threats
Acts punishable:
1. Threatening another with the infliction upon
his person, honor or property or that of this
family of any wrong amounting to a crime and
demanding money or imposing any other
condition, even though not unlawful, and the
offender attained his purpose;
Elements:
a. The offender threatens
another person with the infliction upon the
latter’s person, honor or property, or upon
that of the latter’s family, of any wrong;
b. Such wrong amounts to
a crime;
attaining his purpose;
3. Threatening another with the infliction upon
his person, honor or property or that of his family
of any wrong amounting to a crime, the threat
not being subject to a condition.
 The essence of the crime of threats
is intimidation; i.e. the promise of some future
harm or injury.
 Not necessary that the wrong
threatened to be inflicted must amount to any of
the crimes against persons, honor or property.
Law requires that the wrong must be UPON the
person, honor or property.
 As the crime consists in threatening
another with some future harm, it is not
necessary that the offended party was present at
the time the threats were made. It is sufficient
that the threats, came to the knowledge of the
offended party.
 The crime of grave threats is
consummated as soon as the threats come to the
knowledge of the person threatened.
 Threats made in connection with
the commission of other crimes are absorbed by
the latter.
 The offender in grave threats does
not demand the delivery on the spot of the
money or other personal property demanded by
him. When threats are made and money is taken
on the spot, the crime may be robbery with
intimidation.
 The penalties for the first two types
of grave threats depend upon the penalties for
the crimes threatened to be committed. One
degree lower if the purpose is attained, and two
degrees lower if the purpose is not attained.
 If the threat is not subject to a
condition, the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
 In the first two types, if the threat
is made in writing or thorough a middleman, the
penalty is to be imposed in its maximum period.
 The third type of grave threats
must be serious and deliberate; the offender
must persist in the idea involved in his threats.
The threat should not be made in the heat of
anger, because such is punished under Article
285.
 If the condition is not proved, it is
grave threats of the third type.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

110
 If offender fails to give bail, If the offender fails to give
People vs. Timbol he shall be sentenced to bond, he shall be detained
destierro for a period not exceeding 6
The accused made several advances towards the offended months (if prosecuted for
party. He threatened to kill the woman’s husband if she grave/less grave felony) or
did not accede to his advances. He was convicted of acts not exceeding 30 days (light
of lasciviousness and grave threats. felony)
NOT a distinct penalty A distinct penalty
HELD: The accused should not be convicted of grave
threats because such threats formed part of the
intimidation that he employed to succeed in his lewd
designs. Article 285. Other light threats

Acts punishable:
Reyes vs. People
1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by
A disgruntled employee staged a demonstration in front of
the house of the guy who dismissed him from work. drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in
Phrases of this nature were spoken out loud: “Agustin, lawful self-defense;
putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin, lumabas 2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of
ka, papatayin kita!” anger, with some harm constituting a crime,
without persisting in the idea involved in his
HELD: All the elements of the crime of grave threats as
threat;
defined in Article 282 paragraph 2 are present: (1) the
offender threatened another person with the infliction 3. Orally threatening to do another any harm
upon his person of a wrong; (2) the wrong amounted to a not constituting a felony.
crime and (3) the threat was not subject to a condition.
 Under the first type, the
subsequent acts of the offender must show that
Article 283. Light threats he did not persist in the idea involved in his
threat.
Elements:  Threats which are ordinarily grave
threats, if made in the heat of anger, may be
1. Offender makes a threat to commit a other light threats.
wrong;  If the threats are directed to a
2. The wrong does not constitute a crime; person who is absent and uttered in a temporary
3. There is a demand for money or that fit of anger, the offense is only other light
other condition is imposed, even though not threats.
unlawful;
4. Offender has attained his purpose or, Other light threats Grave threats
that he has not attained his purpose. (second type) (third type)
Harm threatened to be committed is a crime
 Light threats are committed in the Threat is not deliberate Threat is deliberate
same manner as grave threats, except that the (made in the heat of anger)
act threatened to be committed should not be a
crime. Other light threats Light threats
(third type)
 Blackmailing may be punished
Harm threatened to be committed is not a crime
under this article.
There is NO demand for There is demand for money,
money, or other condition or other condition imposed
imposed
Article 284. Bond for good behavior

In what cases may a person be required to give bail Article 286. Grave coercions
not to molest another?
Acts punishable:
1. When he threatens another under Article
282. 1. Preventing another, by means of violence,
2. When he threatens another under Article threats or intimidation, from doing something not
283. prohibited by law;
2. Compelling another, by means of violence,
Bond for good behavior Bond to keep the peace threats or intimidation, to do something against
Applicable only to grave Not made applicable to any his will, whether it be right or wrong.
threats and light threats particular case

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

111
Elements
1. A person prevented another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or that he
compelled him to do something against his will;
be it right or wrong;
2. The prevention or compulsion be effected by
violence, threats or intimidation; and
3. The person that restrained the will and
liberty of another had not the authority of law or
the right to do so, or in other words, that the
restraint shall not be made under authority of law
or in the exercise of any lawful right.
 The purpose of the law in
penalizing coercion and unjust vexation is to
enforce the principle that no person may take the
law into his hands, and that our government is
one of law, not of men.
 In grave coercion, the act of
preventing by force must be made at the time
the offended party was doing or about to do the
act to be prevented. If the act was already done
when violence is exerted, the crime is unjust
vexation.
 Instances when the act of
preventing another is classified as another crime:
o A public officer
preventing by means of violence or threats
the ceremonies or manifestations of any
religion is guilty of interruption of religious
worship (Art. 132)
o Any person who, by
force, prevents the meeting of a legislative
body (Art. 143)
o Any person who shall
use force or intimidation to prevent any
member of Congress from attending the
meetings thereof, expressing his opinions, or
casting his vote (Art. 145)
 Compelling another to do
something includes the offender’s act of doing it
himself while subjecting another to his will.
 A person who is in actual
possession of a thing, even if he has no right to
that possession, cannot be compelled by means
of violence to give up the possession, even by
the owner himself. This will amount to grave
coercion.
 Note however that an owner and
actual possessor a property has a right to use
such force was may be reasonably necessary to
prevent another from dispossessing him of his
property.
 Instances when the act of
compelling is another offense:
o A public officer not
authorized by law who compels a person to
change his residence (Art. 127)
o Kidnapping a debtor to
compel him to pay his debt (kidnapping for
ransom under Art. 267)
 The crime is not grave coercion
when the violence is employed to seize anything
not belonging to the debtor of the offender. This
is light coercion under Article 287.
 Surrounding the victim in a
notoriously threatening attitude is sufficient to
constitute intimidation.
 The force or violence must be
immediate, actual or imminent.
 The owner of a thing has no right
to prevent interference with it when interference
is necessary to avert greater damage.
 There is no grave coercion when
the accused acts in good faith in the performance
of duty.
 Coercion is consummated even if
the offended party did not accede to the purpose
of the coercion. (MEL – this is doubtful, please
check)
 A higher penalty (prision mayor) is
imposed if the coercion is committed:
o In violation of the
exercise of the right of suffrage;
o To compel another to
perform any religious act.
Grave coercion Illegal Detention
There is no clear deprivation There must be actual
of liberty confinement or restraint on
the person of the victim
Grave coercion Maltreatment of prisoner
(compelling a person to
confess/give info)
The offended party is NOT a The offended party is a
prisoner prisoner
Timoner vs. People (1983)
Jose Timoner, the mayor of Daet, ordered the fencing off
of stalls which protruded into the sidewalks of Maharlika
highway. The stalls were recommended for closure by the
Municipal Health Officer.
HELD: There is no grave coercion when the restraint was
made under authority of law or in the lawful exercise of a
right. Mayor Timoner had the authority under the Civil
Code to abate public nuisances. Also, he was merely
implementing the orders of the municipal health officer
and was acting under the authority of a previous decision
which declared one of the stalls as a public nuisance.
Lee vs. CA (1991)
Francis Lee, the branch manager of Pacific Banking
Corporation, threatened to file charges against
complainant de Chin, unless she returned all the money
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
112
equivalent to a forged Midland National Bank cheque which
de Chin deposited in an account in the Pacific Bank.
HELD: To determine the degree of the intimidation, the
age, sex and condition of the person shall be borne in
mind. De Chin was pregnant, but she was also educated
and familiar with banking procedures. She could not have
been easily intimidated by Lee. Besides, a threat to
enforce one’s claim through competent authority, if the
claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent. Lee’s
threat is not improper because there is nothing unlawful
about the threat to sue. Finally, there is a difference
between performing an act reluctantly, even against one’s
good sense and judgment versus performing an act with no
consent at all, such as when a person acts against her will
or under a pressure cannot resist. In this case, de Chin
consented to signing the withdrawal slips. She did so
voluntarily, although reluctantly. Hence, there is no
coercion.
People vs. Alfeche, Jr. (1992)
Complaint for Usurpation of Real Rights in Property
(Art312) in relation to Grave Coercion (Art286) was filed
against accused where it was alleged that he usurped the
possession of the tenants from the land by threatening to
kill them if the latter resisted. This was filed in the RTC.
RTC dismissed saying that the penalty under Art312 was
below the jurisdictional amount of the RTC therefore it had
no jurisdiction on the assumption that the grave coercion
was absorbed with the usurpation.
HELD: RTC had jurisdiction. Art312 defines a single,
special and indivisible crime with a 2-tiered penalty. The
principal one for the usurpation with violence/ intimidation
and an incremental penalty based on the value obtained in
addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence
and intimidation.
When the usurpation is done with violence or intimidation
(in the CAB, grave coercion), the accused must be
prosecuted under Art312 for usurpation and not for the acts
of violence or intimidation under Art286 for grave coercion.
But whenever appropriate, accused may be held liable for
the separate acts of violence or intimidation (e.g. grave
coercion). This separate penalty is in addition to the fine
based on the gain obtained by him.
People v. Santos, 378 SCRA 157 (2002)
FACTS: Josephine gave a 1-year loan to Leonida
but the latter was unable to timely pay the debt. For the
next 4 years, Josephine was unsuccessful in securing
payment from Leonida as the latter stubbornly maintained
her having already settled the account. Josephine, Manny
et. al., with the assistance of CIS agents, then brought
Leonida to Baguio City from her house in Pangasinan, in
order to surrender her to the custody of Baguio City
authorities where Josephine thought she could rightly seek
redress. She was advised, however, that it was in the
province of Pangasinan, not Baguio City, where a case
could be lodged. The trial court convicted Josephine on
the ground that the deprivation of Leonida of her liberty,
regardless of its purpose and although lasting for less than
twenty-four hours, was sufficient to support the charge of
kidnapping.
HELD: The circumstances that have surfaced
warrant a conviction for grave coercion. Grave coercion is
committed when a person prevents another from doing
something not prohibited by law or compelling him to do
something against his will, whether it be right or wrong,
and without any authority of law, by means of violence,
threats or intimidation. Its elements are — First, that the
offender has prevented another from doing something not
prohibited by law, or that he has compelled him to do
something against his will, be it right or wrong; second,
that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence,
either by material force or such display of force as would
produce intimidation and control over the will of the
offended party; and, third, that the offender who has
restrained the will and liberty of another did so without
any right or authority of law. Where there is a variance
between the offense charged in the complaint or
information and that proved and the offense charged
necessarily includes the lesser offense established in
evidence, the accused can be convicted of the offense
proved.
Article 287. Light coercions
Elements:
1. Offender must be a creditor;
2. He seizes anything belonging to his
debtor:
3. The seizure of the thing be
accomplished by means of violence or a display
of material force producing intimidation;
4. The purpose of the offender is to apply
the same to the payment of the debt.
 The seized property must be
applied to the PAYMENT of the debt, not merely
as SECURITY for the debt.
 Taking possession of the thing
belonging to the debtor, through deceit and
misrepresentation, for the purpose of applying
the same to the payment of the debt, is unjust
vexation under the second paragraph of this
article.
 Actual physical violence not
necessary, grave intimidation is sufficient.
Unjust vexation (other light coercion, second
paragraph)
 Includes any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or
material harm, would, however, unjustly annoy
or vex an innocent person. The act must cause
annoyance, irritation, vexation, torment, distress
or disturbance.
 There is no violence or intimidation
in unjust vexation.
 Examples: kissing a girl (despite
her objections, of course!)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
113
 When the first and third elements
of grave coercion are present, but the second
element (violence, threats or intimidation) is
absent, the crime is unjust vexation.
People vs. Reyes (1934)
During a pabasa, the appellants started to construct a
barbed wire fence in front of the chapel. The noise
disrupted the ceremonies and some of the participants
even fled, fearing trouble. The appellants were convicted
of Offending Religious Feelings under Art. 133.
HELD: The construction of a fence even though irritating
and vexatious under the circumstances to those present is
not such an act as can be designated as “notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” The appellants’
act was innocent and was simply to protect private
property rights. The circumstances under which the fence
was constructed – late at night, vexing and annoying those
who had gathered – indicate that the crime committed was
only unjust vexation.
People vs. Anonuevo (1937)
Teodulo Anonuevo embraced and kissed Rosita Tabia and
held her breasts while in church. He was convicted of
abuse against chastity.
HELD: It is error to ascribe the conduct of appellant to
lustful designs or purposes in the absence of clear proof as
to his motive. The religious atmosphere and the presence
of many people belie the fact that he acted with lewd
designs. He either performed a bravado (in defiance of
alleged threats of Rosita’s boyfriend) or wished merely to
force Rosita to accept him as a lover. He is only guilty of
unjust vexation.
Ong Chiu Kwan v. CA, 345 SCRA 586 (2000)
Ong Chiu Kwan admitted having ordered the
cutting of the electric, water and telephone lines of
complainant's business establishment because these lines
crossed his property line. He failed, however, to show
evidence that he had the necessary permits or
authorization to relocate the lines. Also, he timed the
interruption of electric, water and telephone services
during peak hours of the operation of business of the
complainant. Thus, petitioner's act unjustly annoyed or
vexed the complainant. Consequently, petitioner Ong Chiu
Kwan is liable for unjust vexation.
Baleros v. People (2007)
The court wishes to stress that malice, compulsion or
restraint need not be alleged in an Information for unjust
vexation. Unjust vexation exists even without the element
of restraint or compulsion for the reason that the term is
broad enough to include any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or material
harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent
person.
Article 288. Other similar coercions
(compulsory purchase of merchandise and
payment of wages by means of tokens)
Acts punishable:
1. Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly,
or knowingly permitting the forcing or compelling
of the laborer or employee of the offender to
purchase merchandise of commodities of any
kind from him;
Elements:
a. Offender is any person, agent or
officer of any association or corporation;
b. He or such firm or corporation has
employed laborers or employees;
c. He forces or compels, directly or
indirectly, or knowingly permits to be forced
or compelled, any of his or its laborers or
employees to purchase merchandise or
commodities of any kind from him or from
said firm or corporation.
2. Paying the wages due his laborer or
employee by means of tokens or object other
than the legal tender currency of the Philippines,
unless expressly requested by such laborer or
employee.
Elements:
a. Offender pays the wages due a
laborer or employee employed by him by
means of tokens or object;
b. Those tokens or objects are other
than the legal tender currency of the
Philippines;
c. Such employee or laborer does not
expressly request that he be paid by means
of tokens or objects.
 As a general rule,
laborers and employees have the right to receive
just wages in legal tender.
 Inducing an employee to
give up part of his wages by force, stealth,
intimidation, threat or by any other means is not
punished under the RPC, but under Article 116 of
the Labor Code.
Bar Questions
Grave Coercion (1998)
Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy
wearing the said necklace. Isagani asked Roy to return to
him the necklace as it belongs to him, but Roy refused.
Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, "If you will not give
back the necklace to me, I will kill you!" Out of fear for his
life and against his will, Roy gave the necklace to Isagani,
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
114
What offense did Isagani commit? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286,
RPC) for compelling Roy, by means of serious threats or
intimidation, to do something against the latter's will,
whether it be right or wrong. Serious threats or intimidation
approximating violence constitute grave coercion, not grave
threats. Such is the nature of the threat in this case because
it was committed with a gun, is a deadly weapon.
The crime is not robbery because intent to gain, which is an
essential element of robbery, is absent since the necklace
belongs to Isagani.
Grave Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner (1999)
Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person was
tortured and maltreated by agents of the law in order to
compel him to confess a crime imputed to him. The agents
failed, however, to draw from him a confession which was
their intention to obtain through the employment of such
means. What crime was committed by the agents of the
law? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the agents
of the law is a suspect and may have been detained by
them. If so and he had already been booked and put in jail,
the crime is maltreatment of prisoner and the fact that the
suspect was subjected to torture to extort a confession
would bring about a higher penalty. In addition to the
offender's liability for the physical injuries inflicted. But if the
suspect was forcibly brought to the police headquarters to
make him admit the crime and tortured/ maltreated to make
him confess to such crime, but later released because the
agents failed to draw such confession, the crime is grave
coercion because of the violence employed to compel such
confession without the offended party being confined in jail.
(US vs. Cusi, 10 Phil 143)
It is noted that the offended party was merely "brought" to
the police headquarters and is thus not a detention prisoner.
Had he been validly arrested, the crime committed would be
maltreatment of prisoners.
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as
follows: in coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the
employment of violence or serious intimidation
approximating violence, without authority of law, to prevent
a person from doing something not prohibited by law or to
compel him to do something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability
is the actual restraint or locking up of a person, thereby
depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there
was no intent to lock up or detain the offended party
unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not committed.
Article 289. Formation, maintenance, and
prohibition of combination of capital or labor
through violence or threats
Elements:
1. Offender employs violence or threats, in
such a degree as to compel or force the laborers
or employers in the free and legal exercise of
their industry or work;
2. The purpose is to organize, maintain or
prevent coalitions of capital or labor, strike of
laborers or lockout of employers.
 The act should not be a more
serious offense under the RPC. For example, if
death or other serious physical injuries are
caused, the act should be punished as such and
not under this Article.
 Peaceful picketing is not prohibited,
it is a valid exercise of freedom of speech.
 Employing violence or making
threat by picketers may make them liable for
coercion.
 Preventing employees from joining
any registered labor organization is punished
under the Labor Code, not under the RPC.
Article 290. Discovering secrets through
seizure of correspondence
Elements:
1. Offender is a private individual or even a
public officer not in the exercise of his official
function;
2. He seizes the papers or letters of another;
3. The purpose is to discover the secrets of
such another person;
4. Offender is informed of the contents of the
papers or letters seized.
 To seize means to place in the
control of someone a thing or to give him the
possession thereof. It is not necessary that there
be force or violence.
 Prejudice is not an element of the
offense.
 When the offender reveals the
contents of such paper or letters of another to a
third person, the penalty is higher. Thus,
revealing the secret is not an element of the
offense, it only qualifies the offense.
 This article is not applicable to:
o parents, guardians or
persons entrusted with the custody of
minors with respect to papers or letters of
the children or minors placed under their
care or custody;
o spouses with respect to
the papers or letters of either of them.
 Unlawful opening of mail matter by
an officer or employee of the Bureau of Posts is
punished under the Administrative Code.
Discovering secrets Revealing secrets
(Art. 290) (Art. 230)
Offender is a private Offender is a public officer
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
115
individual, or public officer
not in exercise of official
function
The offender SEIZES the
papers or letters
The purpose of the offender
is to discover the secrets of
another, revelation to
another is not an element of
the crime
The offender COMES TO
KNOW of the secrets of the
private individual by reason
of his office. Not necessary
that the secrets are
contained in papers/letters
The offender reveals such
secrets without justifiable
reason.

Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of

office

Elements:

1. Offender is a manager, employee or

servant;
2. He learns the secrets of his principal or
master in such capacity;
3. He reveals such secrets.

 Secrets must be learned by reason

of their employment.
 The secrets must be revealed by
the offender.
 Prejudice/damage is not necessary
under this Article.

Article 292. Revealing of industrial secrets

Elements:

1. Offender is a person in charge, employee or

workman of a manufacturing or industrial
establishment;
2. The manufacturing or industrial
establishment has a secret of the industry which
the offender has learned;
3. Offender reveals such secrets;
4. Prejudice is caused to the owner.

 Secrets must relate to

manufacturing processes.
 The act constituting the crime is
revealing the secret of the industry of employer.
 The revelation of the secret might
be made after the employee or workman had
ceased to be connected with the establishment.
 Prejudice is an element of the
offense.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

116