Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 505 views

    People V PO1 Trestiza

    Uploaded by

    Jaz Sumalinog
    The Supreme Court denied the prosecution's motion to withdraw kidnapping charges against PO1 Trestiza and instead charge him with robbery and grave threats. [1] The prosecution argued kidnapping charges did not apply because Trestiza was a police officer. [2] However, the Court found even public officials can commit kidnapping, and if a police officer kidnaps a victim outside of a legal police operation, they should be treated as a private individual under the kidnapping statute. [3] Whether Trestiza's actions were part of a legitimate police operation is a defense that requires further evidence at trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V PO1 Trestiza

    Uploaded by

    Jaz Sumalinog
    505 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the prosecution's motion to withdraw kidnapping charges against PO1 Trestiza and instead charge him with robbery and grave threats. [1] The prosecution argued kidnapping charges did not apply because Trestiza was a police officer. [2] However, the Court found even public officials can commit kidnapping, and if a police officer kidnaps a victim outside of a legal police operation, they should be treated as a private individual under the kidnapping statute. [3] Whether Trestiza's actions were part of a legitimate police operation is a defense that requires further evidence at trial.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Law

    Original Title

    People v PO1 Trestiza

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the prosecution's motion to withdraw kidnapping charges against PO1 Trestiza and instead charge him with robbery and grave threats. [1] The prosecution argued kidnapping charges did not apply because Trestiza was a police officer. [2] However, the Court found even public officials can commit kidnapping, and if a police officer kidnaps a victim outside of a legal police operation, they should be treated as a private individual under the kidnapping statute. [3] Whether Trestiza's actions were part of a legitimate police operation is a defense that requires further evidence at trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    505 views2 pages

    People V PO1 Trestiza

    Uploaded by

    Jaz Sumalinog
    The Supreme Court denied the prosecution's motion to withdraw kidnapping charges against PO1 Trestiza and instead charge him with robbery and grave threats. [1] The prosecution argued kidnapping charges did not apply because Trestiza was a police officer. [2] However, the Court found even public officials can commit kidnapping, and if a police officer kidnaps a victim outside of a legal police operation, they should be treated as a private individual under the kidnapping statute. [3] Whether Trestiza's actions were part of a legitimate police operation is a defense that requires further evidence at trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People of the Philippines v PO1 Trestiza

    GR No. 193833, Nov.16, 2011

    FACTS:
     RTC found Trestiza guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation of the crime of
    Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
    perpetua and to pay damages to the victims.
     The victims alleged that on November 2002, the accused Trestiza, Manrique and Pineda, armed with
    firearms, kidnapped Lawrence Yu and Maria Irma Navarro, or otherwise deprived them of their liberty
    without legal grounds for the purpose of extorting money (P1M).
     On February 2003, public prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw information of Kidnapping with Ransom and
    to Admit information for Robbery. He pointed out that after he conducted preliminary investigation, he found
    no probable cause exists to warrant the indictment of the accused for the crime of kidnapping with ransom.
    He added that they should be charged instead for the crimes of Robbery and grave threats. The Court set a
    hearing for this motion.1
     Before the issue could be resolved, another judge took over the Court as Assisting Presiding Judge after
    Judge Salvador Abad Santos requested to be relieved. Judge Bernabe issued an order directing the City
    Prosecution Office to conduct re-assessment and re-evaluation of the evidence presented and to submit its
    report within 30 days.
     The prosecution maintains that the correct and appropriate charges to be filed against accused should be for
    robbery and grave threats but for 2 counts each and not for kidnapping as initially filed. Thus, it prayed for
    this Court to be allowed to withdraw the present information.
    o To justify, the prosecution said that the case of kidnapping would not prosper against all the
    accused because the essential elements for the crime of Kidnapping for ransom defined and
    penalized under Article 267 of the RPC is that the offender must be a private individual which does
    not obtain in this case as respondents are public officers.
     CA affirmed RTC’s decision for the case of Kidnapping for Ransom and Robbery.
     Hence, this appeal.

    ISSUE: WON the charges should be kidnapping for ransom or Robbery and grave threats. KIDNAPPING

    RULING:
    The Court denied the Motion to withdraw information for kidnapping. The prosecutor argues that the essence of the
    crime of kidnapping could not be possibly committed by the accused as they are police officers who at the time the
    complainants were divested of cash and personal belongings were conducting a police operation to enforce the
    provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Law. This, according to them, runs counter to the provisions of Art. 267 of the
    RPC which provides that 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:

    a) if the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than 3 days;


    b) if it shall have committed simulating public authority;
    c) 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;
    d) 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 Court finds this unmeritorious. Even a public official can commit the said crime within the context of the aforesaid
    legal provision. It is also said that this article provides that the crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention are
    committed by private individuals obviously because if the offender is a public officer the crime is arbitrary detention
    under Article 214, but passing sub silentio on the matter of kidnapping. It should be understood however, that the
    public officer who unlawfully detains another is punishable by Article 124 is one who has the duty to
    apprehend a person with a correlative power to detain him. If he is only an employee with clerical or postal
    functions, although the Code considers him as a public officer, his detention of the victim is illegal detention
    under this article since he is acting in a private, and not official, capacity. If a policeman kidnaps the victim,
    except when legally authorized as part of police operations' he cannot also be said to be acting in an official
    capacity' hence he is treated as a private individual liable under this article.

    As to whether or not the accused were indeed engaged in the performance of a legitimate police operation at the time
    the private complainants were allegedly deprived of their liberty and personal belongings is a matter which at this
    stage can only be considered as a defense that calls for further factual support in the course of judicial proceedings.
    THUS, the court denied the Motion to Withdraw information for Kidnapping and Trestiza was held guilty for
    Kidnapping.

    You might also like