Cases-34-36.docx

34. People v. Tomio CONTENTION: Accused Maida Tomio, with several others, were convicted of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention. Acting as guides, two to the accused took Tatsumi Nagao around Manila. At one point, one of them placed a pack of cigarettes on Nagao’s person. Soon, 5 plainclothes policemen came and “arrested” Nagao after finding the cigarettes. After taking Nagao to the police station, the accused then demanded that he pay $100,000 to the policemen so he will not go to prison for illegal possession of marijuana. He agreed to pay, but the accused remained with him after being let go from the police station until Nagao paid the money. DEFENSE: One, he was free and could have easily escaped. Two, the money was for payment of the hotel bills. If not that, then the money is to pay back Nagao’s loan due to the accused paying the policemen for Nagao’s release. RULING: Guilty. The accused did connive with the police in demanding money from Nagao. Furthermore, the accused never advanced any money for Nagao’s release. This is why the accused never left Nagao’s presence. Their presence effectively deprived Nagao of his liberty, despite having the freedom of locomotion. Because they never advanced any money, there was no loan for Nagao to pay off. Even if there was a loan, the deprivation of the former’s liberty until payment is still kidnapping or illegal detention for ransom. “Ransom” is “money, price, or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a capture person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity.” If accused’s theory is correct, deprivation would not have been necessary.

35. People v. Mercado CONTENTION: Accused SPO2 Elpidio Mercado y Hernando and SPO1 Aurelio Acebron y Adora were convicted of Kidnapping with Murder. The two officers forced 12-year-old Florencio Villareal and 1

Richard Buama into Mercado’s car, with Mercado poking a gun at Richard. The accused then took the two to Tanay, Rizal. Afterwards, they took Richard and boxed him. Eventually, the officer took Richard, tied him up, placed him in the luggage compartment of Mercado’s car, drove away, and killed him. Mercado and Acebron warned Florencio not to tell anyone or they will kill him and his family. DEFENSE: They could not be convicted of Kidnapping With Murder because there was no evidence that Homicide was committed in furtherance or as a consequence of Kidnapping. Also, they were on official duty in Tanay, Rizal at the time of the kidnapping. RULING Guilty. The officers did kidnap Richard because they tied Richard up and placed him in the luggage compartment, depriving him of liberty. In fact, his liberty was already deprived when they took him at gunpoint earlier. Even though the accused are police officers, they acted in their private capacities. Furthermore, the charge was proper due to the amendment by RA 7659. Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of detention, whether it was purposely sought or a mere afterthought, the crime shall be punished as a “special complex crime” of Kidnapping With Murder. As to their alibi, it would still be possible for the officers to be at the scene. The distance from Pasig to Tanay is at most an hour’s drive. Given that the crime occurred around 9 o’clock in the evening, the drive would be much shorter.

36. People v. Del Socorro CONTENTION: Accused Leticia Del Socorro was convicted of Kidnapping for taking away 4-year-old Claire, the daughter of Evelyn Sanchez. When her daughter did not come home one day, she asked the nearby children as to her whereabouts. The children claimed that a woman came and took her, with the victim resisting and crying. Later, it was found that the child was with a physician. She disclosed that the accused brought Claire to her and asked for her to take care of the child. She also asked for money as a donation for her store. 2

DEFENSE: She found Claire on here own, crying. Upon inquiry, the child said that two children quarreled with her and her lola refused to take her along. Claire then voluntarily went with the accused. RULING: Guilty. One, the child herself testified that she resisted the accused. Two, even if that were the case, she did not bring the child either to her own home, which was closer, nor did she bring the child to the nearest police station.

3