People v Del Socorro182 SCRA 35915 February 1990FACTS: *AppealLeticia Sandiad de Del Socorro was charged for wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnapping one CLAIRE SANCHEZ, a minor below seven (7) years old, for the purpose of permanently separating said child from EVELYN SANCHEZ y TEJERO and ANTONIO SANCHEZ, parents of the said child and thereafter sold to one DRA. APOLONIA VILLAMAYOR, in the amount of P700.00. On 11 February 1984, Claire Sanchez was taken from outside her home in Mandaluyong by Del Socorro. The child was brought to a certain Dr. Apolonia Villamayor in Angono Rizal who gave P700 as donation upon the behest of accused who said she wanted the lady physician to take care of the child, whom she referred to as her daughter, because her husband had died just two (2) months ago and she could not afford to feed her brood. Accused denied that she kidnapped the child, saying that she saw her in the street crying and as the child did not seem to know where she lived, Socorro took pity and brought her along when she went to Angono where she entrusted the child to Dr. Villamayor.ISSUE: WN accused committed kidnappingHELD: YES. The claim of the defendant-appellant that the child, Claire Sanchez, went voluntarily with her, cannot be given credence.Evidence of kidnapping: Evelyn Sanchez, the mother of the child, Claire, declared that when she asked her daughter upon their reunion if she went voluntarily with the defendant-appellant, the child answered that she did not. defendant-appellant herself testified that when she picked up the child in Mandaluyong, her only thought was to bring the child to Dr. Villamayor If she really pitied the child whom she described as crying on the sidewalk, why, it can be asked, did she not bring her to the nearest police station in Mandaluyong? why did she think only of Dr. Villamayor who, according to her, she did not even know personally, but only in name?

* To cut down on the illicit traffic of children, we urge the prosecution of persons to whom children are sold or given away for a valuable consideration. Oftentimes, it is only the abductor or kidnapper who is prosecuted. Yet, the person to whom the kidnapped child is given and who may have wittingly or unwittingly given the motivation for the abduction, goes scot-free, even as the intention of this person is to keep and raise the child as his own. By keeping the child, under these circumstances, is he not guilty of serious illegal detention?People v LimG.R. No. 86454 October 18, 1990FACTS: July 1, 1986, Masbate, accused conspired and mutually helped each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap Aida and Avelyn Villanueva, both minors; separating them from their parental care; Aida Villanueva was detained for about 20 days in the house of Carmen Lim alias "Mameng" while Avelyn Villanueva was detained and brought to Cebu City by accuseds sister, thereby depriving Aida and Avelyn of their personal liberties.Accused stated however that she took in the girls when she saw them in the street and told her that their father had driven them away from home. She fed and clothed both; Aida stayed with her while she proposed to the former that Avelyn would accompany her sister to Cebu. Aida agreed on the condition that she and Avelyn could meet every week.ISSUE: WN kidnapping was committed.HELD: NO.There is no kidnapping when the fact of detention, which is an essential element of the crime charged, was not clearly established.There is no kidnapping in this case. The two minors voluntarily entered the appellant's residence through the front entrance. The fact of detention which is an essential element in the crime charged, was not clearly established. There was no showing that there was actual confinement or restriction of the person of the offended party. The appellant's residence has a store fronting the street where many customers presumably come and go. The place is busy with a movie house in front. There is no indication that Aida was locked up, physically restrained of her liberty or unable to communicate with anyone.Justified by: no motive whatsoever for the appellant to kidnap the two children The appellant is a woman of sufficient means Had she wanted to hire an additional maid, she could certainly afford to hire another one without going to the extent of committing a crime as serious as kidnapping. [People vs. Lim, 190 SCRA 706(1990)] There was no need to kidnap a minor and force her to work against her will

People v RamosG.R. No. 118570October 12, 1998 FACTS:On 13 July 1994, an American pastor named Malcolm Bradshaw was driving his car along EDSA. At the bus stop between Corinthian Gardens cor. White Plains Avenue, he saw Alicia Abanilla struggling to break away from the arms of accused-appellant. The woman hailed other vehicles for help but to no avail. Bradshaw stopped his car and blew his horn repeatedly to attract the womans attention. She grabbed the opportunity and ran towards Bradshaws car and hopped in at the back seat. Unfortunately, Ramos caught up with her and squeezed himself into the same car.From EDSA Bradshaw turned right towards White Plains Avenue where he was flagged down by a traffic policeman. As Bradshaw slowed down Ramos pulled out his gun and ordered to go straight ahead. Ramos and Alicia were dropped off in Proj. 4. Before they left the vehicle, Alicia asked Bradshaw to inform her family of the situation. Ransom money was delivered to Ramos later in the day. In attempting to escape the vehicle they were in, Alicia jumped out but her blouse was caught. Ramos stopped the car and shot her twice causing her death. RTC: convicted Ramos of two (2) separate crimeskidnapping for ransom and murderinstead of the complex crime charged in the Information. It held that there was no proof that the victim was kidnapped for the purpose of killing her so as to make the offense a complex crime. Thus, the killing of the victim was found to be merely an afterthought, making accused-appellant liable for two (2) separate offenses. ISSUE: WN kidnapping was committed.HELD: YES.The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty coupled with an indubitable proof of intent on the part of the malefactor to effect such restraint on the offended partys liberty. The term actual deprivation of liberty consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure but also of detaining a person or depriving him in any manner of his liberty. actual restraint of the victims liberty was evident from the moment she was forcibly prevented by accused-appellant from going to work at Meralco and taken instead against her will to Bulacan. Her freedom of movement was effectively restricted by her abductor who, armed with a .22 caliber compelled her to go with himFor kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary that the offended party be kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion.It is enough that, as in the instant case, she was in any manner deprived of her liberty, unable to moveand get outas she pleased.

People v SabardanG.R. No. 132135 May 21, 2004FACTS:That about and during the period beginning the 15th day of September 1991, to the 30th day of September 1991, in Binangonan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and by force and intimidation, detain and keep lock one Richelle Banluta, a girl twelve (12) years of age in his rented apartment at No. 5 Linaluz St, from September 15 to September 30, 1991, or a period of fifteen (15) days, under restraint and against the will of said Richelle Banluta, and said accused during said period of detention did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have a carnal knowledge of the complainant Richelle Banluta while she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious by reason of a drug which he administered to her, against her will and consent.Defendant alleges he never saw Richelle during the period of September 15, 1991 to September 30, 1991, nor did he invite her to stay in his apartment.20 He further asserted that he had nothing to do with the offense charged and that Richelle was merely trying to exact money from him.ISSUE: WN rape was committed.HELD:Criminal Law; Rape; The situs criminis is not an essential element in rape.The verisimilitude and probative weight of the testimony of Richelle, that the appellant detained her against her will and raped her in his apartment, were not debilitated by her mistake in declaring that the apartment of the appellant was at Linaluz Street, when, in fact, it was at No. 11-C Luz Street. It must be stressed that the situs criminis is not an essential element in rape. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge by the accused of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Richelles mistake was only minor and collateral to the gravamen of the crime charged. She consistently testified that the appellant detained and raped her in his apartment, only about thirty meters away from their house. The appellant admitted that he resided in the said apartment, and that Richelle and her family were his neighbors. It has been held that inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony, referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime, do not diminish the witnesses credibility.Serious Illegal Detention with Rape; Where the original and primordial intention of the accused in keeping the complainant in his apartment was to rape her and to deprive her of her liberty, he is guilty only of rape and not of the complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape.In light of the evidence on record, the original and primordial intention of the appellant in keeping Richelle in his apartment was to rape her and not to deprive her of her liberty. Hence, the appellant is guilty only of rape under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, and not of the complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape under Article 267, in relation to Articles 335 and 48 of the Code. Hence, the trial court correctly sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua. * EXTRA: A test to determine the presence of any sedative or drug in the drinks given to a victim is not an indispensable element in the prosecution for rape. In rape cases, carnal knowledge of the victim by the accused may be proven not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence.It is well-settled that healed lacerations do not necessarily negate rape.Well-settled is the rule that testimonies of young victims of rape deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication.Moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without the necessity of proof, for it is assumed that they suffered moral injuries entitling them to such award.

People v BaluyaG.R. No. 181822.April 13, 2011FACTS:August 31, 2003, in Manila, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap, take, detain and carry away GLODIL CASTILLON, nine (9) years old, son of Gloria Castillon, while the latter was playing outside of their residence along Laon Laan St., Sampaloc, by poking a knife on his back, twisting his hands and forcibly bringing him to Novaliches, thus detaining and depriving him of his liberty under restraint and against his will and consent. ISSUE: WN kidnapping and serious illegal detention was committed.HELD:Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention; The deprivation means not only the imprisonment of a person, but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time.The deprivation required by Article 267 of the RPC means not only the imprisonment of a person, but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. It involves a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. If the victim is a child, it also includes the intention of the accused to deprive the parents of the custody of the child. In other words, the essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.Same; Same; Where the victim in a kidnapping case is a minor, it becomes even more irrelevant whether the offender forcibly restrained the victim.Where the victim in a kidnapping case is a minor, it becomes even more irrelevant whether the offender forcibly restrained the victim. As discussed above, leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way home, even if he had the freedom to roam around the place of detention, would still amount to deprivation of liberty. For under such a situation, the childs freedom remains at the mercy and control of the abductor.*EXTRA: Like alibi, denial is an inherently weak defense, which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses.Denial is a self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be given greater weight than that of the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters. Like alibi, denial is an inherently weak defense, which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.