#### Facts
On December 13, 1999, Ma. Teresa Basario went to a McDonald’s outlet in Binondo, Manila, with her two-year-old son, Christopher, and her elder sister Zenaida. Soon after arriving, Christopher followed Zenaida to the counter and disappeared. Despite an extensive search and media appeals for help, Teresa received no information about her son’s whereabouts until February 25, 2001, when she received a call from a woman claiming to have Christopher and demanding P30,000 for his return. Subsequent negotiations led Teresa to coordinate with the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) and travel to Lanao del Norte for a planned exchange on April 7, 2001. During the operation, Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad Sarapida Taurak were arrested, and Christopher was recovered, though he no longer recognized his mother or spoke their language, indicating a significant period of separation.
#### Procedural Posture
Mamantak and Taurak were charged with kidnapping for ransom. They pleaded not guilty, and after the trial, both were found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the trial court. The conviction was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to death. The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court pursuant to procedural requirements for death penalty cases.
#### Issues
1. Whether the acts of Mamantak and Taurak constituted kidnapping for ransom.
2. Whether the demand for P30,000 was indeed ransom.
3. What is the appropriate penalty under the law, considering legislative changes affecting the death penalty.
#### Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications. It held that the elements of kidnapping for ransom were present, particularly the deprivation of liberty and the demand for money in exchange for the victim’s release, qualifying it for the imposition of the death penalty. However, due to Republic Act (RA) 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the Court modified the sentence to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and adjusted the damages awarded.
#### Doctrine
1. Kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, entails the deprivation of liberty with the intent to extort ransom.
2. The essence of the crime is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty and the demand for a ransom as a condition for release.
3. Changes in the laws affecting the death penalty must be applied retrospectively in favor of the accused if it is beneficial.
### Class Notes
– Key Elements of Kidnapping for Ransom: Private individual kidnaps or detains another, deprivation of liberty, the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal, and ransom is demanded.
– Relevant Legal Statutes: Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, and RA 9346 prohibiting the death penalty.
– Application: The physical and psychological separation of the victim from their family, combined with a demand for money, constitutes kidnapping for ransom. Legislative changes affecting penalties are applied retrospectively in favor of the accused.
### Historical Background
This case took place during a period in Philippine legal history where the application of the death penalty was fluctuating, highlighting legal reforms and the evolving stances on capital punishment. The transition from the imposition of the death penalty to prohibiting it underlines significant shifts in the Philippine legal system’s approach to fundamental human rights and punitive measures.
Leave a Reply