Dear PAO,

I watched the news and learned that the suspects in a kidnapping-for-ransom case were apprehended by police officers. However, the ransom money was never recovered or confiscated by the authorities. Can the suspects still be held criminally liable for the crime of kidnapping for ransom despite the non-recovery of the ransom money?

Inka

Dear Inka,

The answer to your query is found in the case of People of the Philippines v. Galicia (GR 238911, June 28, 2021), wherein the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, held that the elements of Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) The offender is a private individual; (2) The offender kidnaps, detains, or in any manner deprives another person of his or her liberty; (3) The kidnapping or detention is illegal; and (4) The kidnapping or detention is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom.

Furthermore, in People of the Philippines v. Jatulan (GR 171653, April 24, 2007), the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Cancio Garcia, defined ransom as the “money, price, or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that would release him [or her] from captivity. No specific form of ransom is required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom was intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim’s freedom. Whether or not the ransom is actually paid to or received by the perpetrator is of no moment.”

Similarly, in People of the Philippines v. Jose Olbato y Aurella, et al. (GR 276833, Jan. 21, 2026), the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, ruled that where the prosecution sufficiently establishes that a ransom was demanded, negotiated, and ultimately delivered, the crime of kidnapping for ransom is deemed to have been committed. The Court held that the non-presentation of the ransom money in evidence does not negate the fact that a ransom demand was made and paid. The demand for and payment of ransom having been duly proven, the loss or non-presentation of the ransom money does not engender reasonable doubt as to the commission of the offense.

Applying the foregoing jurisprudence to your query, the essence of the offense of Kidnapping for Ransom lies in the unlawful deprivation of liberty coupled with the demand for money as consideration for the victim’s release. The prosecution is not required to present the ransom money itself in evidence, provided that the demand for ransom and the surrounding circumstances establishing the commission of the offense are otherwise proven by competent and credible evidence. Accordingly, the non-recovery of the ransom money does not preclude a conviction for Kidnapping for Ransom.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]