G.R. No. 143547 - Potot y Surio vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143547)

Key Dates

Disappearance: December 13, 1999. Phone ransom contacts and related events: February–March 2001. Recovery and arrests: April 7, 2001. Trial court decision: November 30, 2004. Court of Appeals decision: March 31, 2006. Supreme Court decision: July 28, 2008.

Applicable Law

Article 267, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (kidnapping and serious illegal detention; death or reclusion perpetua where victim is minor or where kidnapping committed for ransom). Republic Act No. 9346 (abolition of death penalty; conversion of death sentences to reclusion perpetua without parole). The decision applies principles and protections under the 1987 Constitution.

Procedural Posture

The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordering compensatory and moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed guilt but modified the penalty to death, treating the demand for P30,000 as ransom qualifying for the death penalty under Article 267. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty in accordance with RA 9346.

Facts Found by the Courts

The child disappeared from a fast-food outlet in Binondo on December 13, 1999 and was recovered only after almost 16 months. During that period the child was under the custody of the accused and was taken to Mindanao, learned a Muslim dialect and identity, and did not recognize his mother at the time of recovery. A P30,000 demand was made as a condition for the child’s release. A sting operation involving the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force resulted in the transfer of the ransom and the immediate arrest of Mamantak and Taurak at Kapatagan on April 7, 2001. The mother and law enforcement identified the accused as persons who demanded and accepted the ransom.

Issues Presented

Whether the elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267, as amended by RA 7659, were established beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the P30,000 demand constituted a qualifying demand for ransom that would elevate the penalty under Article 267.
Proper penalty and damages in view of RA 9346 and established jurisprudence.

Legal Elements and Standards Applied

The Court articulated the elements of kidnapping: (1) offender is a private individual (not a parent or public officer in the special contexts specified), (2) deprivation of another’s liberty, (3) unlawfulness of the deprivation, and (4) presence of qualifying circumstances (including that the victim is a minor or that the kidnapping was for the purpose of extorting ransom). For minors, the duration of detention is immaterial; likewise, if detention was for ransom, duration is immaterial. The Court also applied the well-settled principle that trial court findings on credibility and factual circumstances carry great weight when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Application of Law to Facts — Guilt and Credibility

The Court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of kidnapping for ransom. The child, at two years old, was deprived of liberty for nearly 16 months and was under the custody and control of the accused, with no realistic means to leave or return to his family. The courts rejected appellants’ defenses (that Taurak merely sheltered a wandering child and later sought to return him, and that Mamantak was coincidentally present) as implausible and inconsistent with the evidence. Specific conduct—demanding P30,000 as a condition for release, presence and participation in the ransom handover, and actions showing concerted assistance—established that Mamantak and Taurak acted as principals in the kidnapping. The courts credited prosecution witnesses and law enforcement testimony and found the appellants’ explanations inherently incredible.

Characterization of the P30,000 Demand as Ransom

The Court confirmed that “ransom” encompasses any money, price, or consideration demanded for the release of a captured person and that no particular form or amount is required. The decisive test is whether the demand was used as a bargaining chip for the victim’s freedom. Here, the P30,000 demand was manifestly a condition for release and therefore qualified as ransom under Article 267. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ characterization of the demand as a qualifying circumstance, although legal consequences as to the penalty were adjusted in light of statutory abolition of the death penalty.

Penalty and Statutory Modification

Article 267 prescribes death where kidnapping is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. However, Republic Act No. 9346 abolished the death penalty and converted all death sentences to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Applying RA 9346, the Supreme Court reduced the death penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, while otherwise

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 143547)

Case Citation and Background

Reported at 582 Phil. 294, En Banc; G.R. No. 174659; decision rendered July 28, 2008; opinion penned by Justice Corona.
Criminal case for Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
Parties: People of the Philippines (Plaintiff-Appellee) v. Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad Sarapida Taurak (Accused-Appellants).
Case was tried in the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 43 (decision penned by Acting Presiding Judge Amor A. Reyes), appealed to the Court of Appeals (Fifth Division, penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios), then elevated to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 (as amended).

Facts — Disappearance and Initial Efforts to Locate the Child

On December 13, 1999, at about 3:00 p.m., Ma. Teresa Basario took her two-year-old son Christopher to a McDonald’s outlet in the KP Tower on Juan Luna St., Binondo, Manila; Teresa and an elder sister, Zenaida, were present.
Christopher followed Zenaida to the counter and disappeared from Teresa’s sight; frantic searches inside and outside the outlet failed to locate him.
Teresa and Zenaida reported Christopher missing to the nearest police detachment and Teresa sought publicity by going to several TV and radio stations the following day; no positive leads ensued and prank calls aggravated her distress.

Facts — Contacts, Ransom Demand and Arranged Meeting

On February 25, 2001, Teresa received a phone call from a woman who “sounded like a muslim” claiming custody of Christopher and demanding P30,000 for his return.
On March 27, 2001, the same caller directed Teresa to obtain a recent photo of Christopher from the Jalal Restaurant at the Muslim Center in Quiapo; Teresa did so and received a recent picture.
Teresa continued communications with the mysterious woman; the woman instructed Teresa to board a ship for Mindanao but Teresa instead planned a payoff for the morning of April 7, 2001 at Pitang’s Carinderia in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte.
Teresa sought assistance from the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF); PO3 Juliet Palafox (in some parts of the record referenced as PO2) was assigned to pose as Teresa’s niece for the operation.

Facts — Recovery Operation, Arrest and Condition of the Child

On April 7, 2001, Teresa and PO3 Palafox arrived in Iligan City and proceeded to Pitang’s Carinderia at the designated hour.
At around 8:30 a.m., two women arrived: Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad Sarapida Taurak. Mamantak approached and asked who they were waiting for; Teresa showed the photo and said they were waiting for “Rocma Bato,” a name written on the photograph.
Mamantak claimed to know “Bato” and said she would inquire; Taurak, represented as a cousin of Bato, approached and informed Teresa and PO3 Palafox that she had Christopher.
Taurak asked Teresa and PO3 Palafox to come with her; they refused and Taurak left indicating she would fetch the child; later she returned and eventually presented Christopher at the carinderia.
Upon reunion, Teresa embraced Christopher who did not respond emotionally; the child spoke only in a Muslim dialect and identified himself by a Muslim name using “Taurak” as surname.
Mamantak and Taurak demanded the ransom; PO3 Palafox signaled and handed the ransom money (P30,000) to Mamantak inside a jeepney parked outside; the PAOCTF team then arrested both women.
Christopher was recovered after almost 16 months; he relearned Tagalog after about a month and gradually began to forget the incident.

Facts — Effects on the Mother and Family

Teresa experienced severe emotional distress: at the time of Christopher’s kidnapping she was pregnant with a third child; the child was born very sickly and eventually died.
The prolonged separation and the child’s inability to recognize or remember her caused profound suffering to Teresa.

Charges, Pleas and Trial

Mamantak and Taurak were charged by Information with Kidnapping for Ransom, alleging conspiracy, willful and felonious taking and deprivation of liberty of Christopher Basario on December 13, 1999 in Binondo, Manila, with a ransom demand of P30,000.
The Information sought damages and alleged the offense was contrary to law. Both accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
Trial proceeded after pre-trial; both prosecution and defense presented witnesses and evidence.

Defendants’ Testimony / Defense Version

Likad Sarapida Taurak testified she was peddling wares in Divisoria on December 13, 1999; she claimed she found Christopher wandering, that he did not understand her, and that she took the boy into her care awaiting someone to claim him.
Taurak asserted she did not immediately surrender the child to authorities; she claimed the following morning she and her husband tried the nearest police outpost but none were there and they brought the boy to their stall, keeping him until parents could claim him.
Taurak stated she brought the child to Maganding, Sultan Kumander, Lanao del Sur on February 17, 2001. She claimed Teresa later contacted her to request a picture for confirmation and that the April 7, 2001 meeting at Pitang’s was arranged to confirm identity; she claimed she did not bring Christopher initially for safety and surrendered him only after confirming Teresa’s identity, and protested when arrested.
Raga Sarapida Mamantak corroborated Taurak’s account, claiming she was in Nunungan, Lanao del Norte on December 13, 1999, that she encountered Taurak and Christopher at Pitang’s only by chance on April 7, 2001, and that she had not committed any crime and was surprised at the arrests.

Trial Court Findings and Judgment (RTC)

The trial court evaluated all evidence and found both Taurak and Mamantak gu