HomeCommentarySurviving a kidnapping

Surviving a kidnapping

I never knew the real reason behind that incident 24 years ago, but it only showed one thing: policemen and soldiers were involved

If there was the word “tokhang” in the 1990s, then I could have been a “tokhang survivor.”

“Tokhang” comes from the Visayan words “toktok (knock)” and “hangyo (appeal).” It was coined by government law enforcers for their anti-illegal drug operations wherein they knock on the doors of suspected drug peddlers and users and urge them to stop the drug trade.

“Oplan Tokhang” is the controversial flagship anti-illegal drugs program of the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte that resulted in the death of thousands of suspects.

The “nanlaban (fighting back)” narrative refers to how the victims supposedly fought back the police and ended up dead.




“I almost became a “tokhang” victim myself at the age of 26.

On the evening of August 23, 1997, I just came from my class at UP College of Law and was on my way to the wake of Filipino comfort woman Lola Rosa Henson.

When the vehicle I was riding stopped somewhere in Quezon city, armed men swarmed the car.

- Newsletter -

One man tapped the window on my side while pointing a gun at me. He opened the door and searched the vehicle before asking me where the drugs are.

Because they found none, I was pulled out from the car and was transferred another vehicle. They also took my friend’s car along with a female classmate.

What made me feel more helpless was when my eyeglasses misted. Running for safety would have been difficult for me because of the resulting dull vision.

Inside the car, one held me down with his hand pinning my head on his lap. He also removed my eyeglasses.

As we traveled in a seemingly circuitous route, I felt something cold and heavy on my head. I was sure that it was a gun.

I thought of jumping out, but I realized that even before I could get up and open the door, the man who was holding me, could easily shoot me.

They continued to bombard me with threats. “Don’t fret if you don’t want us to kill you. We won’t hurt you because we are not really after you.”

Prayers kept me alive until I was released.

“Run, Run fast, and don’t turn back or I’ll shoot you,” the man shouted.

Freedom brought a sense of elation and relief, but adjusting back to the real world was difficult. The trauma kept me afloat for days.

A week later, the men who kidnapped me were reportedly killed in a shootout with policemen. They were identified as former police officers and military men.

From 1993 to 2003, the total incidents of “reported” kidnap cases have been estimated at 1,292, with victims totalling to 2,330.

If the perpetrators were caught alive, they could have been then charged with either (a) kidnapping and serious illegal detention or (b) carnapping.

The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. The deprivation of a person’s liberty can be committed in different ways. It is not always necessary that the victim be imprisoned. The second element of the crime of kidnapping is met as long as there is a showing that the victim’s liberty of movement is restricted. (People v. Borja, G.R. No. 199710, August 02, 2017)

Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, a convicted person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua (imprisonment from 20 to 40 years) if threats to kill the victim shall have been made, which they did in my case.

On the other hand, the elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under R.A. No. 6539 are the following (a) an actual taking of the vehicle; (b) the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself; (c) the taking is without the consent of the owner; or the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; and (d) the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle (People v. Bernabe and Garcia, 448 Phil. 269 ).

The perpetrators could have been punished by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) years and one (1) day but not more than forty (40) years, because the carnapping in this case was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon things

I never knew the real reason behind that incident 24 years ago, but it only showed one thing: policemen and soldiers were involved.

Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, email [email protected], or call 09175025808 or 09088665786

© Copyright LiCAS.news. All rights reserved. Republication of this article without express permission from LiCAS.news is strictly prohibited. For republication rights, please contact us at: [email protected]

Support LiCAS.news

We work tirelessly each day to tell the stories of those living on the fringe of society in Asia and how the Church in all its forms - be it lay, religious or priests - carries out its mission to support those in need, the neglected and the voiceless.
We need your help to continue our work each day. Make a difference and donate today.

Latest