Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

ANNRELYN M.

OMBAJIN
Student No. 25
Criminal Law II- Kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape

PEOPLE VS. ANTICAMARA


651 SCRA 489, [G.R. No. 178771], (June 8, 2011)

Facts:

Conrado Estrella and his wife employed AAA and Sulpacio Abad as maid and driver
respectively. Sometime on the afternoon of 07 May 2002, the group of Fernando
Fernandez (Lando), Alberto Anticamara (Al), Dick Taedo (Dick), Roberto Taedo (Bet),
Marvin Lim (Marvin), and Fred Doe entered the house of AAAs employer whilst she
was sleeping. Thinking that the intruders left the house already, she attempted to
run but Dick was still there. After a brief commotion, the group decided to tie AAA
and was led outside the house. AAA saw Abad tied and blindfolded inside a vehicle.

AAA was brought to the fishpond, there she saw Necitas Ordeiza-Taedo (Cita). The
group brought Abad outside the vehicle and was led away. AAA heard the group
discussing to make a decision since Abad apparently has been shot four times. Later
on, Lando and Fred boarded the vehicle taking AAA with them to San Miguel, Tarlac.
She was kept in Landos house until 09 May 2002.

On 09 May 2002, Lando told AAA that Fred and Bert has intention to kill her and he
brought her to a hotel. Through threat, Lando sexually molested AAA. Later on Fred,
Bert and Lando transferred AAA to the house of Freds niece in Riles, Tarlac. Fred
kept AAA as a wife and repeatedly raped her at night, threatening to give her back
to Lando whom she knew killed Abad.

On 22 May 2002, Fred, together with his family, transferred AAA to Carnaga. AAA
was made to stay as a house helper in the house of Freds brother-in-law. On 04 June
2002, AAA escaped the house and sought help from her friend who called AAAs
brother. Arriving Mandaue City, AAA and her brother reported the incident to police
authorities. The cadaver of Abad was autopsied and cause of death was gunshot
wounds on trunk.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused are guilty of special complex crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape.

Ruling:

The Court finds appellant Lando guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention with rape, defined in and penalized under Article 267 of
the Revised Penal Code. The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code are: (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 following circumstances is present: (a) the
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by
simulating public authority; or (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.

It is settled that the crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a
person in an enclosure, but also in detaining him or depriving him in any manner of
his libertyfor there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from
going home.The crime of kidnapping was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution. Appellants Lando and Al, both private individuals, forcibly took AAA, a
female, away from the house of the Estrellas and held her captive against her will.
Thereafter, appellant Lando brought AAA to his house in San Miguel Tarlac, whereby
she was deprived of her liberty for almost one month. It is settled that the crime of
serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but
also in detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty. For there to be
kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. Its essence
is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the
intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. Although AAA was not confined in
an enclosure, she was restrained and deprived of her liberty, because every time
appellant Lando and his wife went out of the house, they brought AAA with them.
The foregoing only shows that AAA was constantly guarded by appellant Lando and
his family.