People vs Ty, 263 SCRA 745

G.R. No. 121519 October 30, 1996 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. VICENTE TY !" C#R$EN TY, accused-appellants.

%#P&N#N, J.: p

Vicente Ty and Carmen Ty Ty were charged with the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor in an information filed by 2nd Assistant City rosecutor of !alookan City "osauro #. $ilverio, the accusatory portion of which reads% That on or about the month of April &'(', in !alookan. City, )etro )anila, and within the *urisdiction of this +onorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the owners, proprietors, managers and administrators of $ir #ohn Clinic and as such said accused had the custody of Arabella $ombong, a minor, conspiring together and mutually helping one another and with deliberate intent to deprive the parents of the child of her custody, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to restore the custody of said Arabella $ombong to her parents by giving said custody of sub*ect minor to another person without the knowledge and consent of her parents. Contrary to aw. 1 oth accused were arrested, and then arraigned on ctober 2/, &''2 when they pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.  After trial, on )ay 0&, &''1, a decision was rendered by the "egional Trial Trial Court of !alookan City, City, ranch &20, the decretal portion of which disposes as follows% +3"34"3, this Court finds both accused $pouses Vicente Ty and Carmen Ty guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping a minor and failure to return the same as defined and penali5ed by Article 2/6 of the "evised enal Code and hereby sentences them to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. perpetua. The accused are hereby ordered to pay the private complainant the sum of &66,666.66 by way of moral damages caused by an7iety, by her being emotionally drained coupled by the fact that up to this date she could not determine the whereabouts of her child Arabella $ombong. $ "83"38. 2 The accused now interpose this appeal alleging the ensuing assignment of errors, viz % 9

T+3 T"9A C:"T 3""38 9; 49;89;< T+AT A3A;T$ =8393"AT3> 4A938 T "3$T"3 T+3 C+98 T +3" )T+3",= A;8 C;V9CT9;< T+3) :;83" A"T. 2/6 4 T+3 "3V9$38 3;A C83, A;8 $3;T3;C9;< T+3) T =RECLUSION PERPETUA" ? 99 T+3 T"9A C:"T 3""38 9; ;T +89;< T+AT T+3 C"9)3 C))9TT38, 94  A;>, 9$ T+AT 8349;38 A;8 3;A9@38 :;83" A"T. 2// 4 T+3 "3V9$38 3;A C83? 999 T+3 T"9A C:"T 3""38 9; ;T "3C))3;89;< 33C:T9V3 C3)3;C> :"$:A;T T "3C383;T 9; =33 vs. es, mam. H% hat did you do with the childI  A% 9 *ust tell sic D the child, =Ay ang laki mo na pala,= 9 *ust told the child like that and 9Gve sic D talked also to the guardian during that time, mam.

H% And what did you tell the guardianI  A% 9 told the guardian that the rightful mother was claiming for the child and that we should talked sic D with each other at the A for the decision, mam. H% 8id the guardian bring the child to the AGs ffice sic DI  A% ;o mam, she did not appear. H% hyI  A% They told me first that they are sic D going to contact a lawyer but for sic D several days, she did not respond anymore, mam. 15 hen the guardians refused to return the child, accused-appellant 8r. Ty sought the assistance of the ;ational ureau of 9nvestigation ;9D which conducted a conference among the parties but since a case was yet to be filed, the custody of the minor remained with the guardians. This fact is evident from the following testimony, thus% H% >ou testified on cross-e7amination that you located the whereabouts of the child sometime later, what steps did you take up sic D after you found the childI  A% 9 e7plained to the guardian that the verbal agreement between the supposed to be guardianship was only a plain guardianship and not as an adoption, sir. H% >ou said you went to the ;9 after you found the child, why did you go to the ;9I  A% ecause the guardian are sic D not willing to surrender the child to the AGs ffice sic D, that is why 9 asked their help, sir. 16 ...

H% ;ow, when you informed the present custodian that the natural mother is now claiming the child, why were you not able to get the minorI  A% 9 was not able to get the minor so 9 asked the help of the ;9 to have the child surrender sic D, mam.  ATT>. A"8% H% And what happened when you get sic D the assistance of the ;9I

 A% They were the ones who asked the guardian to surrender the child, mam. H% >ou stated a while ago that there was no written agreement between you or your hospital and the guardian of the minor, is that correctI  A% >es, mam. H% 4or what reason if you know, why didD the guardian did  sic D not follow you or obey you when you want sic D to get back the childI  A% 9 donGt know of any reason, mam. 1( The efforts taken by the accused-appellants to help the complainant in finding the child clearly negate the finding that there was a deliberate refusal or failure on their part to restore the child to her mother. 3vidence is simply wanting in this regard. 9t is worthy to note that accused-appellantsG conduct from the moment the child was left in the clinicGs care up to the time the child was given up for guardianship was motivated by nothing more than an earnest desire to help the child and a high regard for her welfare and well-being. +3"34"3, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby "3V3"$38 and $3T  A$983. Accordingly, accused-appellants V9C3;T3 T> and CA")3; T> are hereby ACH:9TT38 of the crime charged and are ordered to be released immediately unless they are being detained for other lawful causes. Costs $e o!icio. $ "83"38. Pa$illa# &ellosillo# 'itu an$ (ermosisima# )r*# ))*# concur* Foot!ote*

& Rollo, p. 1. 2 I$ ., at 0&. 0 I$ ., at F(. F T$;, Apri& (, &''F, pp. F-&0. 1 Ibi$ . B 37hibit (. / See ;ote F, supra, pp. &F-&/.

( I$ ., at lB, &'-2&. '