Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    PP Vs Mamantak Digest

    Uploaded by

    sakura
    (1) A mother reported her two-year old son missing and after 16 months received a call demanding a ransom for his return. (2) With police assistance, two accused were arrested exchanging the boy for money. (3) The court found the accused's testimonies that one was caring for the boy and the other was coincidentally at the payoff not credible given the facts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PP Vs Mamantak Digest

    Uploaded by

    sakura
    59 views2 pages
    (1) A mother reported her two-year old son missing and after 16 months received a call demanding a ransom for his return. (2) With police assistance, two accused were arrested exchanging the boy for money. (3) The court found the accused's testimonies that one was caring for the boy and the other was coincidentally at the payoff not credible given the facts.

    Original Title

    pp-vs-mamantak-digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) A mother reported her two-year old son missing and after 16 months received a call demanding a ransom for his return. (2) With police assistance, two accused were arrested exchanging the boy for money. (3) The court found the accused's testimonies that one was caring for the boy and the other was coincidentally at the payoff not credible given the facts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    PP Vs Mamantak Digest

    Uploaded by

    sakura
    (1) A mother reported her two-year old son missing and after 16 months received a call demanding a ransom for his return. (2) With police assistance, two accused were arrested exchanging the boy for money. (3) The court found the accused's testimonies that one was caring for the boy and the other was coincidentally at the payoff not credible given the facts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People of the Philippines vs.

    Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad Sarapida Taurak


    G.R. No. 174659, July 28, 2008
    560 SCRA 298
    FACTS:
    A mother lost her two-year old son in Manila and recovered him after 16 months from
    the two accused in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte. She reported him missing to the
    authorities and even informed the public through tv and radio announcements but to no
    avail. Months after the disappearance of her son, she received a call from a Muslim
    woman asking for P30,000 in exchange for her son who was in their custody in
    Mindanao. With the assistance of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force,
    the two accused were arrested during the pay off. One of the accused claimed that she
    was merely giving the boy refuge when she took him under her care and the other
    accused stated that she was only at the pay off point by coincidence and it was her first
    time seeing the boy.
    ISSUE: Were the testimonies of the two accused credible?
    RULING:  No. The Court held that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from
    the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself. The statements of the two
    accused did not deserve credence. The factual findings of the trial court, including its
    assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight thereof, are
    accorded great, if not conclusive, value when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
    What is the essence of the crime of kidnapping?
    It is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to
    effect it. If the victim is a minor or if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the
    purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention becomes inconsequential.

    Elements of Kidnapping:
    (1) the offender is a private individual; not either of the parents of the victim or a public
    officer who has a duty under the law to detain a person;

    (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any 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 following circumstances is present:

    (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days;

    (b) it is committed by 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 official.


    What is ransom?
    Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of
    a captured person that will release him from captivity. No specific form of ransom is
    required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom is
    intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim’s freedom. The amount of and
    purpose for the ransom is immaterial.

    Death Penalty Law


    While the penalty for kidnapping for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or
    any other person under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is death, RA 9346 has
    banned the death penalty and reduced all death sentences to reclusion perpetua
    without eligibility for parole. Pursuant to this law, we reduce the penalty imposed on
    appellants from death to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.

    Is the award of damages proper?


    Yes. When the crime of kidnapping is attended by a demand for ransom, by way of
    example or correction, an award for exemplary damages is proper.

    You might also like