People vs. Reyes

G.R. No. 107462 (August 30, 1996)

Facts:

Appellant Delia Reyes y Dela Cruz and co-accused Rey Arnel Reyes y Garbonella were charged with kidnapping a minor, Asnia (Malagu) Mohamad, on May 8, 1991, in Angeles City, Philippines. Delia, a former housemaid of the Mohamad family, returned to their home to reapply for the position. After being accepted, she took the Mohamad children, including four-and-a-half-year-old Asnia, to watch a movie without informing their parents.

While the parents were occupied—Rasmia at the market and Almadin praying—Delia invited the children to leave the house. She instructed the two older sisters to return home to lock the door, leaving Asnia with her. When the sisters returned, Delia and Asnia were missing. The Mohamad family organized a search that lasted nearly two months, involving police and community members.

The search concluded when Rey Arnel, Delia's cousin and also a former employee of the Mohamads, was interrogated and provided information leading to Delia's arrest in Manila on July 7, 1991. Asnia was found in the custody of an elderly woman in a squatter area. The child appeared malnourished and distressed. Delia, upon being questioned, gave a vague response regarding her actions.

Delia denied the kidnapping charge, claiming she had permission from Almadin to take the children for a walk. She asserted that after learning of her mother's death, she rushed to La Union without returning Asnia to her parents, relying on a friend to do so.

During the trial, Rey Arnel escaped from custody and was tried in absentia, ultimately being acquitted due to lack of evidence. Delia was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, along with an order to pay damages to the Mohamad family.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Delia Reyes committed the crime of kidnapping.
2. Whether Delia's actions constituted a deliberate failure to restore the minor to her parents.

Arguments:

Prosecution:

• The prosecution argued that Delia's actions of taking Asnia without parental consent and failing to return her constituted kidnapping. They highlighted the extensive search efforts and the emotional distress suffered by the Mohamad family.
• They contended that Delia's vague explanation for her actions and her failure to return Asnia demonstrated a deliberate intent to separate the child from her parents.

Defense:

• Delia contended that she had permission from Almadin to take the children for a walk and that her subsequent actions were not intended to kidnap Asnia.
• She argued that the death of her mother caused her confusion, leading her to leave Asnia with a friend without malicious intent.
• The defense claimed that the prosecution failed to prove that Delia intentionally did not return Asnia to her parents.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding Delia guilty of kidnapping. The court reasoned that Delia's actions were not merely negligent but constituted a deliberate scheme to take Asnia away from her parents. The following points were emphasized:

1. Delia's invitation to the children to leave their home without informing their parents was a calculated move.
2. The instruction to the older sisters to return home while keeping Asnia with her indicated a clear intent to separate the child from her family.
3. The extensive search efforts and the eventual discovery of Asnia two months later underscored the seriousness of Delia's actions.
4. Delia's claim of confusion due to her mother's death was deemed implausible, as she could have easily returned Asnia to her parents before leaving for La Union.

The court concluded that Delia's negligence was gross and amounted to a willful act of kidnapping. The absence of corroborating evidence regarding her mother's death further weakened her defense. The court also noted that the non-presentation of Asnia and the friend to whom Delia entrusted her did not diminish the prosecution's case, as Delia could have compelled their testimony if it were exculpatory.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

• The crime of kidnapping under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code requires proof that the offender was entrusted with the custody of a minor and deliberately failed to restore the minor to their parents or guardian.
• The court emphasized that mere negligence is insufficient for a conviction; there must be evidence of willful intent to separate the child from their parents.
• The non-presentation of potential witnesses does not automatically weaken the prosecution's case if the accused had the opportunity to present them.