01 People v. Damayo II.

It is committed by simulating public authoruty;

G.R. No. 232361 | 26 Sept 2018 | Art. 267, RPC | Santos III. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon teh eprson
PETITIONER: People of the PH kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made;
RESPONDENT: Francisco Damayo IV. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor, femaile, or a
public officer.
RECIT-READY: Jerome was kidnapped outside his school by appellant.
Appellant, known to him as Kuya Frank, approached him and told him he was
there to fetch him as they were going somewhere. His parents Edna and Jerry
started to look for Jerome when the latter did not return from school. The next
FACTS:
day, Edna received a phone call from a person whom Edna recognized as
appellant’s. He told Edna that Jerome will be set free, provided he will be paid
1. On 7 Aug. 2003, Jerome Rosario, 11 years old, was outside his
Php150,000.00 and to meet at a terminal in Dau, Pampanga the next day.
school at Sucat Elementary School. Appellant, known to him as
Jerome’s parents alongside with the police planned an operation to retrieve
Kuya Frank, approached him and told him he was there to fetch
Jerome. Upon meeting appellant at the terminal, he was arrested by the police
him as they were going somewhere.
and they were able to safely recover Jerome from his house. All the elements
2. His parents Edna and Jerry started to look for Jerome when the
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention were established in this case. It is
latter did not return from school.
undisputed that Damayo is a provate indivirual, he took Jermone form his
- When they chanced upon a classmate of Jerome, Daryll,
school on 7 August 2008, and brought said victim to his house in San
they were informed that an unknown man had taken
Fernando, Pampanga and kept him there until he was safely recovered on 9
Jerome during dismissal time.
August 2008. Although it was not established that Jerome placed inside an
3. The next day, Edna received a phone call from a person who
encolsoure or was locked up, he was still deprived of his liberty because he
introduced himself as Jerome’s classmate. Edna immediately
cannot leave the place here Damayo brought him. The SC ruled that leaving
recognized the voice to be of appellant’s.
a child in a place from which he did know the way home, even if he had
- The instructions was that he will be given Php150,000.00
the freedom to roam around the place would still amount to deprivation
for Jerome to be set free. He directed her to meet him at a
of liberty since under this situation, the child’s freedom remains at the
terminal in Dau, Pampanga the next day.
mercy and control of the abductor.
- Edna and Jerry went to the Muntinlupa Police Station to
report the matter, and an operation was planned to
retrieve Jerome.
DOCTRINE: Kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art. 267 of the
- During the meet-up, Edna touched the arm of appellant,
RPC has the following elements:
which was the signal for the police to arrest him.
- The police asked appellant where Jerome was being kept
a. The offender is a private individual;
and he told them Jerome was at his home. The police
b. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any mannder deproves the latter
were able to safely recover Jerome.
of his liberty;
4. RTC found Damayo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping
c. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
and serious illegal detention under the 1st and 2nd pars. of Art. 267
d. In the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances
of the RPC. CA affirmed.
is present:
I. The kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days;
 5. Before the SC, Damayo denies that he abducted Jerome and
attacks the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He contends
that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.
ISSUE(S): 1. W/N the trial court erred in convicting appellant of Art.
267? NO
RULING:
1. The SC ruled that Damayo’s conviction must stand. In order that
the accused can be convicted of kinapping and serious illegal
dention, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt all of
the elements of the crime:
a. The offender is a private individual;
b. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any mannder
deproves the latter of his liberty;
c. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
d. In the commission of the offense any of the following
circumstances is present:
I. The kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3
days;
II. It is committed by simulating public authority;
III. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon
teh eprson kidnapped or detained or threats to kill
him are made;
IV. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor,
femaile, or a public officer.
Art. 267 likewise provides that when the victim is a minor, the
duration of his detention is immaterial. Moreover, if the victim is
kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting
ransom, the duration of his detention is immaterial.
2. The rule is that the curtailment of the victim’s liberty need not
involve any physical restraint upon the latter’s person and it is not
necessary that the offender kept the victim in an enclosure or
treated him harshly. Hence, the essence of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty,
couples witht he indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to
effect such deprivation.
3. Here, the elements have been sufficiently proven. It is undisputed
that Damayo is a provate indivirual, he took Jermone form his
school on 7 August 2008, and brought said victim to his house in
San Fernando, Pampanga and kept him there until he was safely
recovered on 9 August 2008.
Although it was not established that Jerome placed inside an
encolsoure or was locked up, he was still deprived of his liberty
because he cannot leave the place here Damayo brought him.
Damayo remained outside and kept watch, which shows that
Jerome was constantly guarded by Damayo during the period of his
captivity.
4. The SC ruled that leaving a child in a place from which he did know
the way home, even if he had the freedom to roam around the
place would still amount to deprivation of liberty since under this
situation, the child’s freedom remains at the mercy and control of
the abductor.
In this case, Jerome was brought to Pampanga, which is a place
totally unfamiliar to him. Even if he had freedom of locomotion side
the house of Damayo, he did not have the freedom to leave the
same at will or escape therefrom b/c he did not know where to go
and could not possibly go back home as did not know how to do so.
5. Whether Jerome was taken by force or not is of no moment. What
is controlling is the act of accused in detaining the victim against his
will after the offender is able to take the vicim in his custory. It is
settled that the carrying away of the victim can either be made
forcibly or fraudunetly. In this case, he was deceived by Damayo to
go with him.