People v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Delia Reyes y dela Cruz and co-accused Rey Arnel Reyes y Garbonella were charged with kidnapping ASNIA (Malagu) MOHAMAD, a 4 1/2-year-old minor. On May 8, 1991, appellant, a former housemaid of the victim's parents, visited their home. While the parents were occupied, appellant invited the victim and her two elder sisters to watch a movie. She instructed the elder sisters to return home to lock the door, but she left with the victim, Asnia, and disappeared. A massive search ensued, involving media and approximately 100 individuals. The victim was found two months later in the custody of an old lady in Mabalacat, Pampanga, after the arrest of the co-accused, Rey Arnel Reyes, who provided leads. The victim's parents incurred significant expenses and suffered mental anguish during the search. Appellant claimed she took the child to Mabalacat due to news of her mother's death and instructed a friend, Agnes Viriales, to return Asnia, but this was found incredible by the courts. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found appellant Delia Reyes y dela Cruz guilty of kidnapping and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua, ordering her to indemnify the victim's parents P200,000.00 as actual damages and P100,000.00 as moral damages. The co-accused, Rey Arnel Reyes, was acquitted for lack of evidence. Appellant appealed the RTC decision. The Petition: Appellant contended that the RTC erred in convicting her despite the prosecution's failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt and in concluding that she deliberately failed to restore the minor to her parents.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the crime of kidnapping. Whether the appellant deliberately failed to restore the minor victim to her parents.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding appellant Delia Reyes y dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and sentencing her to reclusion perpetua. The Court ordered her to indemnify the victim's parents for actual and moral damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the crime of kidnapping: The Court held that the crime of kidnapping under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code requires two elements: (1) that the offender was entrusted with the custody of a minor person, and (2) that the offender deliberately failed to restore the said minor to his parents or guardian. The appellant admitted being entrusted with the care of the victim, a minor. On Whether the appellant deliberately failed to restore the minor victim to her parents: The crucial element was whether her failure to return the child was deliberate. The Court found the appellant's excuse regarding her mother's death incredible, noting the lack of corroboration and the proximity of Angeles City to Mabalacat, which would have allowed her to return the child before proceeding to La Union. The Court concluded that the appellant's negligence was so gross as to amount to a willful scheme to take the child away from her parents. This conclusion was supported by several circumstances: (1) appellant lured the children out of their house; (2) she separated the youngest child from her elder sisters; (3) she and the child could not be located despite extensive searches and media publicity; (4) the child was found only after the appellant's arrest; and (5) the appellant harbored ill-feelings against the victim's family due to unpaid salaries. The Court also noted that the appellant's failure to present the child, Asnia, or her friend Agnes Viriales, whom she claimed was entrusted with the child, did not weaken the prosecution's case, as she could have utilized court processes to compel their attendance if their testimonies would have exculpated her. Therefore, the elements of kidnapping were sufficiently established.
Main Doctrine
The crime of kidnapping under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code is committed when the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person and deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardian. Gross negligence in the performance of the duty to return the child can amount to a willful scheme to take the child away from her parents.