1D CRIMINAL LAW 2
1. People v Borja G.R. NO. 199710
DATE: Aug 2, 2017
PONENTE: J. Leonen
DOCTRINE The fact that the accused is a public official does not automatically preclude
the filing of an information for kidnapping against him.
A public officer who detains a person for the purpose of extorting ransom
cannot be said to be acting in an official capacity. The Court explained that
public officials may be prosecuted under Art 267 of they act in their private
capacity. The burden is on the accused to prove that he or she acted in
furtherance of his or her official functions.
FACTS
Short Facts:
In 2004, respondent PO3 Borja allegedly forcibly took Ronalyn Manatad inside a van where 3
other men were waiting. Respondent and his companions drove around Quezon City while
demanding a sum of money from Ronalyn’s family in exchange for her life.
Ronalyn’s brother then seek the assistance of the National Anti-Kidnapping Task Force, which
led to the arrest of respondent.
Respondent’s Contention:
He argued that Ronalyn was not deprived of her liberty because she was lawfully arrested and
charged with violation of RA 9165.
Brief Rulings of Lower Courts: RTC found respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
kidnapping for ransom.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not accused-appellant PO3 Borja is guilty of kidnapping under Art. 267 of the
RPC. Yes.
RULING
Ronalyn’s apprehension for violation of RA 9165 does not automatically negate the criminal
liability of accused-appelant. It also does not exclude the possibility of the commission of the
crime with which accused-appellant is charged. The buy-bust operation carried out against
Ronalyn and her kidnapping are events that can reasonably coexist.
A violation of RA 9165 bears no direct or indirect relation to the crime of kidnapping.
Ronalyn’s arrest is immaterial to the determination of the respondent’s liability. Therefore, the
resolution of this case will depend solely on whether the prosecution has established all the
elements of kidnapping under Art. 267.
A conviction for the crim of kidnapping or serious illegal detention requires the concurrence of
the following elements: 1) offender is a private individual; 2) that individual kidnaps or detains
another in any other manner deprives the latter of liberty; 3) the act of detention or kidnapping
is illegal; 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; b/ it is committed by one who simulates
public authority; c. any serious physical injury is inflicted upond the person kidnapped or
detained, or any threat to kill that person is made; d. the person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, a female or a public officer.
The fact that the accused is a public official does not automatically preclude the filing of an
information for kidnapping against him.
A public officer who detains a person for the purpose of extorting ransom cannot be said to be
acting in an official capacity. The Court explained that public officials may be prosecuted under
Art 267 of they act in their private capacity. The burden is on the accused to prove that he or she
acted in furtherance of his or her official functions.
In this case, Ronalyn was clearly deprived of her liberty. She was forcibly taken inside a vehicle
by the accused and his cohorts and was driven around Quezon City. Hence, the first 2 and the
last elements of the crime of kidnapping are present. These acts are completely unrelated to
accused’s functions as a police officer, and as such, he may be prosecuted under Art 267 of
RPC.
The 3rd element is also present when the respondent and his companions deprived the victim of
her liberty to extort ransom from her family.
All the elements of kidnapping were sufficiently proven by the prosecution, which cannot be
overturned by the respondent’s bare denial and alibi. Thus, the latter is liable for kidnapping
under Art 267 of the RPC.
[Sales III, Manuel Maharlika]
