Case Digest: People vs Mamantac GR 174659 28 July 2008

         Article 267: Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention | Criminal Law

Facts:

At about 3:00 p.m. on December 13, 1999, Teresa went with Christopher and her elder sister Zenaida to a McDonald’s outlet in the KP Tower in Juan Luna St., Binondo, Manila. Teresa and Christopher looked for a vacant table while Zenaida proceeded to order their food. Shortly after Teresa took her seat, Christopher followed Zenaida to the counter. Barely had Christopher gone from his mother’s sight when she realized that he had disappeared. 

She and her sister frantically looked for him inside and outside the premises of the fastfood outlet, to no avail. As their continued search for the child was futile, they reported him missing to the nearest police detachment.

The following day, Teresa went to several TV and radio stations to inform the public of the loss of Christopher and to appeal for help and information. Despite the publicity, however, Teresa received no word about Christopher’s whereabouts. Worse, pranksters were gleefully having a field day aggravating her misery.

On February 25, 2001, Teresa received a call from a woman who sounded like a muslim. The caller claimed to have custody of Christopher and asked for ₱30,000 in exchange for the boy.

On March 27, 2001, the same muslim-sounding woman called and instructed Teresa to get a recent photo of her son from the Jalal Restaurant at the Muslim Center in Quiapo, Manila. True enough, when Teresa went there, someone gave her a recent picture of Christopher. She then contacted the mysterious woman through the cellphone number the latter had previously given her. When the woman instructed her to immediately board a ship for Mindanao, Teresa reasoned that she had not raised the ransom money yet. They then agreed to conduct the pay off in the morning of April 7, 2001 at Pitang’s Carinderia in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte.

Teresa sought the help of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). A team was formed and Police Officer (PO)3 Juliet Palafox was designated to act as Teresa’s niece.

Together with the PAOCTF team, Teresa left for Mindanao on April 4, 2001. On April 7, 2001, they arrived in Iligan City and proceeded to the designated meeting place.

At around 8:30 a.m., while Teresa and PO3 Palafox were waiting at Pitang’s Carinderia, two women came. They were Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad Sarapida Taurak. Mamantak approached Teresa and PO3 Palafox and asked who they were waiting for. Teresa replied that they were waiting for a certain Rocma Bato, the name written at the back of the picture she received in Jalal Restaurant in Manila. She showed the photo to Mamantak who stated that she knew Bato. Mamantak then told Teresa that she would ask a cousin of Bato if the latter was already in Kapatagan. Mamantak turned to Taurak, supposedly the cousin of Bato. Taurak came near Teresa and PO3 Palafox and informed them that she had Christopher. Taurak asked Teresa and PO3 Palafox to come with her but they refused. Taurak reluctantly agreed to leave Mamantak with them while she fetched Christopher.

Several hours later, in the afternoon of the same day, Taurak returned and told Teresa that Christopher was in a nearby ice plant. She asked Teresa to go with her but the latter insisted on their agreement that the boy be handed over at the carinderia. Taurak relented, left and came back after several minutes with Christopher.

Upon seeing her son, Teresa cried and embraced him. However, the child was unmoved. He no longer recognized nor understood her for he could only speak in the muslim dialect. When asked who he was, the boy gave a muslim name with "Taurak" as surname.

Mamantak and Taurak interrupted Teresa and demanded the ransom money. She answered that her niece had it and pointed to PO3 Palafox. Thereafter, Mamantak and PO3 Palafox boarded a jeepney which was parked outside, under Taurak’s watchful eyes. Inside the jeepney, PO3 Palafox handed the ransom money to Mamantak. At this juncture, PO3 Palafox gave the pre-agreed signal and the PAOCTF team then closed in and arrested Mamantak and Taurak.

Christopher relearned Tagalog after a month and gradually began to forget the incident. On the other hand, Teresa almost lost her sanity. At the time Christopher was kidnapped, she was pregnant with her third child. The child, born very sickly, eventually died.

The sisters Mamantak and Taurak were charged with kidnapping for ransom under the following Information:

That on December 13, 1999 in Binondo, Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another and grouping themselves together, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, carry away and deprive Christopher Basario, a two-year old minor of his liberty against his will for the purpose of extorting ransom as in fact a demand for ransom was made as a condition for his release amounting to THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱30,000.00) to the damage and prejudice of Christopher Basario in said amount and such other amount as maybe awarded to him under the provisions of the Civil Code.

Defense: 

Taurak testified that at the time and date of the alleged kidnapping, she was peddling wares in Divisoria market, Manila. When she saw Christopher wandering about aimlessly, she talked to him but he did not seem to understand her. She took the boy under her care and waited for someone to come for him. No one did. As it was already 7:00 p.m., she brought the boy home with her to the Muslim Center in Quiapo.

The next day, she and her husband took the boy to the nearest police outpost but no one was there so they just brought the boy to their stall. They opted to keep the boy until his parents could claim him.

On February 17, 2001, Taurak brought the child to Maganding, Sultan Kumander, Lanao del Sur. Sometime later, Teresa contacted her and asked for Christopher’s picture for confirmation. It was at this point that Taurak arranged a meeting at Pitang’s Carinderia in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte on April 7, 2001. She did not bring the boy at first as a precautionary measure. Only after confirming that Teresa was the boy’s mother did she relinquish custody to her. However, she was shocked when members of the PAOCTF suddenly arrested her. She protested because she was innocent. There were no charges against her nor was there a warrant for her arrest.

RTC:  GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom as amended by RA No. 7659 and both are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. 

CA: Affirmed the conviction of Taurak and Mamantak with modification amending the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death.

Issue:

WoN the CA is correct in affirming the conviction of Taurak and Mamantak with modification amending the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death.

Held:

Guilty of Kidnapping as defined and punished under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, and amended by Republic Act (RA) 7659:

ART. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. – Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.

2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.

3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.

The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.

The crime has the following elements:

(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.

If the victim is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention becomes inconsequential. 

The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. And liberty is not limited to mere physical restraint but embraces one’s right to enjoy his God-given faculties subject only to such restraints necessary for the common welfare.

The two-year-old Christopher suddenly disappeared in Binondo, Manila and was recovered only after almost 16 months from Taurak and Mamantak (both of them private individuals) in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte. During the entire time the boy was kept away from his mother, he was certainly deprived or restrained of his liberty. He had no means, opportunity or capacity to leave appellants’ custody and return to his family on his own. He had no choice but to stay with total strangers, go with them to a far away place and learn a culture and dialect alien to him. At such a very tender age, he was deprived of the liberty to enjoy the company and care of his family, specially his mother.

Taurak unlawfully kept the child under her control and custody and even brought him to Lanao del Norte. She demanded ₱30,000 in exchange for his return to his mother. On the other hand, Mamantak’s actions (e.g., her presence in the carinderia and her acceptance of the ransom) showed without doubt that she was aiding her sister and was acting in concert with her. These were the identical factual findings of both the trial and appellate courts. There is no reason to disturb them as they are sufficiently supported by evidence.

Taurak’s story that she merely gave Christopher refuge was incredible. It was like the apocryphal tale of a man accused of theft of large cattle; his excuse was that he saw a piece of rope and brought it home not knowing that there was a cow tied to the other end. She never even tried to bring the boy to the proper authorities or surrender him to the Department of Social Welfare and Development’s social workers in her barangay or in the city hall at any time during the 16 months he was with her. And how could Teresa have initiated her phone conversations with Taurak when they were total strangers to each other?

Similarly, Mamantak’s account that she was at Pitang’s Carinderia only by coincidence and that it was only there that she first saw Christopher invites nothing but disbelief. The unequivocal testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on her role in arranging for the payment of ransom and the release of the kidnap victim (e.g., confirming the identity of Teresa and demanding and receiving the ransom money) showed otherwise. The evidence clearly established that Mamantak was a principal in the kidnapping of Christopher.

Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself. The trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that the statements of Taurak and Mamantak did not deserve credence. Moreover, 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.

The Court of Appeals considered the demand for ₱30,000 as a qualifying circumstance which necessitated the imposition of the death penalty. On the other hand, the trial court deemed the amount as too measly, compared to what must have been actually spent for the care and subsistence of Christopher for almost two years. It therefore treated the amount not as ransom but as a reimbursement of expenses incurred for taking care of the child. (Kidnappers in Mindanao today call it reimbursement for "board-and-lodging.")

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.

In this case, the payment of ₱30,000 was demanded as a condition for the release of Christopher to his mother. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly considered it as a demand for ransom.

Penalty:

Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. 

PhP50,000.00 as civil indemnity, 

PhP200,000.00 as moral damages, and 

PhP100,000.00 as exemplary damages

The civil indemnity and damages shall earn interest at 6% per annum.

Recit Version:

Facts:  

The sisters Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad Sarapida Taurak were accused of kidnapping two-year-old Christopher Basario for ransom in Binondo, Manila. Christopher went missing in a McDonald's restaurant on December 1999, and despite efforts to locate him, no progress was made. 

Teresa, Christopher's mother, received a ransom demand in February 2001. The woman instructed Teresa to retrieve a recent photo of her son from a restaurant in Quiapo, Manila, and later asked her to travel to Mindanao for the exchange. As Teresa had not raised the ransom money, they agreed to meet on April 2001, in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte.

Teresa sought assistance from the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF), who formed a team for the operation. PO3 Juliet Palafox played the role of Teresa's niece to support her in the process.  

When Teresa finally reunited with Christopher, he no longer recognized or understood her due to speaking in a Muslim dialect. He identified himself with a Muslim name and the surname "Taurak."

Defense: 

Taurak claimed that she encountered Christopher wandering aimlessly in Divisoria market, Manila, and tried to communicate with him, but he didn't seem to understand her. Taurak decided to take care of the boy and waited for someone to come looking for him. She brought Christopher home to the Muslim Center in Quiapo and later to Maganding, Sultan Kumander, Lanao del Sur.

RTC:  GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom as amended by RA No. 7659 and both are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. 

CA: AFFIRMED the conviction of Taurak and Mamantak with modification amending the penalty from RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH.

Issue: 

WoN the CA is correct in affirming the conviction of Taurak and Mamantak with modification amending the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death.

Held:

Guilty of Kidnapping as defined and punished under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, and amended by Republic Act (RA) 7659:

 

During the entire time the boy was kept away from his mother, he was certainly deprived or restrained of his liberty. He had no means, opportunity or capacity to leave appellants’ custody and return to his family on his own. He had no choice but to stay with total strangers, go with them to a far away place and learn a culture and dialect alien to him. At such a very tender age, he was deprived of the liberty to enjoy the company and care of his family, specially his mother.

The Court of Appeals considered the demand for ₱30,000 as a qualifying circumstance which necessitated the imposition of the death penalty. On the other hand, the trial court deemed the amount as too measly, compared to what must have been actually spent for the care and subsistence of Christopher for almost two years. It therefore treated the amount not as ransom but as a reimbursement of expenses incurred for taking care of the child. (Kidnappers in Mindanao today call it reimbursement for "board-and-lodging.")

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.

Penalty:

Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. 

PhP50,000.00 as civil indemnity, 

PhP200,000.00 as moral damages, and 

PhP100,000.00 as exemplary damages

The civil indemnity and damages shall earn interest at 6% per annum.