Scribd
Upload
104 views

G.R. No. 110097 December 22, 1997 Facts

Arnulfo Astorga appealed his conviction of kidnapping and detention of a minor. He argued that the prosecution witnesses were not credible due to inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimonies. He also claimed he had no motive to kidnap the 8-year old girl. The court found that a one week delay in filing the criminal accusation did not weaken the credibility of witnesses. It also ruled that motive is not an element of the crime and is irrelevant. However, the court agreed with Astorga that the evidence did not show he intended to detain the girl or that he actually detained her. His actions constituted grave coercion rather than kidnapping.

Uploaded by

Enn Arr Angeles Tapoc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
104 views

G.R. No. 110097 December 22, 1997 Facts

Arnulfo Astorga appealed his conviction of kidnapping and detention of a minor. He argued that the prosecution witnesses were not credible due to inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimonies. He also claimed he had no motive to kidnap the 8-year old girl. The court found that a one week delay in filing the criminal accusation did not weaken the credibility of witnesses. It also ruled that motive is not an element of the crime and is irrelevant. However, the court agreed with Astorga that the evidence did not show he intended to detain the girl or that he actually detained her. His actions constituted grave coercion rather than kidnapping.

Uploaded by

Enn Arr Angeles Tapoc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

110097; December 22, 1997


FACTS:
Appellant Arnulfo Astorga
appealed the courts decision on Criminal Case No. 8243 wherein
appellant was charged with violation of Article 267, paragraph 4 of the
Revised Penal Code or thekidnap and detention of a minor.Astorga insisted
that the inconsistencies and the contradict
ions of the prosecutions witnesses
should be deemed incredible and that the delay in the filing of the accusation
weakened the case.Furthermore, Astorga claimed that he had no motive
to kidnap the 8-year-old Yvonne Traya which
shouldve been apparent and
proven upon conviction. Ultimately, Astorga claimed that the courterred in
convicting him despite the fact that he had not detained nor locked Yvonne
up which is animportant element in kidnapping.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not the prosecutions witnesses w
ere credible.
2.) Whether or not the lack of motive by the appellant is significant in the courts
decision.
3.) Whether or not it was kidnapping or coercion.
RULING:
1.) The delay in the making of the criminal accusation does not necessarily
weaken the credibilityof the witnesses especially if it had been satisfactorily
explained. In the case, one week wasreasonable since the victim was a
resident in Binaungan and that the case was filed in Tagum,Davao.2.) The
court found it irrelevant to identify the motive since motive is not an
element of the crime.Motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct evidence
sustains the culpability of the accused beyondreasonable doubt. Besides, the
appellant himself admitted having taken Yvonne to Maco CentralElementary
School.3.)
The court agreed with the appellants contention. The evidence does not show that
appellantwanted to detain Yvonne; much less, that he actually detained her. Appellants
forcible dragging of
Yvonne to a place only he knew cannot be said to be an actual confinement
or restriction on the
person of Yvonne. There was no lock up. Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted
of kidnapping
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Rather, the felony committed
was grave coercionunder Article 286 of the same code.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy