People v.

Bernardo

G.R. No. 144316. March 11, 2002

Summarized by John Albert R. Amparo

Appeal from decision of RTC of NCJR convicting appellant of the crime of kidnapping and failure to
return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing her to suffer reclusion
perpetua and to pay damages. The court affirmed the decision holding that her act of leaving with
the baby and refusal to return it satisfies the two elements of the crime.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE

The Tolibas y Aguada Family:

 Roselynn (Roselynn )- a minor, 15 day old baby girl

 Roselle (Referred to as oneesan)- 12-year-old sister of the baby
 Rosita (the mother)

Bernardo (kidnapper)

Emerento Torres (Barangay Kagawad)

FACTS

1. Around 11:30 am one morning, the baby and her oneesan were with their mother at a
hospital.
2. While her mother was undergoing medical check-up, appellant approached the sisters.
She sat beside them and asked if the baby was a boy or a girl which oneesan readily
answered.

3. Appellant gave P3.00 to oneesan and asked her to buy ice water. She was not able to find
one. On her way back to the hospital, she saw the accused running away with the
baby. She chased and caught up with the appellant who claimed she was running after the
sisters’ mother.

4. Oneesan held and pulled the appellants skirt to prevent her from getting away but the
appellant persisted in running with oneesan holding on to the appellants skirt. To slow
down the accused, oneesan hugged the accused who struggled to free herself.

5. Oneesan shouted for help, thereby attracting the attention of Emerento Torres, a
Kagawad who was then resting in front of his house on Felix Huertas Street.
 a. He found them struggling with oneesan shouting “Akina ang kapatid ko, akina ang
kapatid ko.”

6. Torres accosted appellant and took the baby from her and gave it to his wife. Then he led
appellant and oneesan to the hospital to look for the mother of the baby. Torres found
Rosita at the hospital and she confirmed to him that she was the mother of the baby
(Ibid.).

7. Defense:

a. She claims that she was told to hold the baby by the oneesan and that after thirty
minutes of waiting, she decided to go the hospitals entrance gate to look for the
girl. It was when she was already outside the hospitals entrance gate when the girl
reappeared, shouting and calling for help, claiming that the appellant was
kidnapping the baby.

b. She also points to the fact that there was no deliberate failure on her part to
restore the minor Rosalyn Tolibas to her parents or guardians, stating that the
charge filed against her was a mere overreaction.

ISSUE W/ HOLDING

1. W/N defenses raised hold?

a. That she was asked to hold the baby

i. No. Court finds this claim to be illogical for why would anyone, regardless
of age, entrust a child to a complete stranger and then just run away
without saying where she was going or when she was returning

b. She was going to the hospitals entrance gate to look for child’s mother.

i. No. Appellant testified that she knew there was an information counter at
the hospital (TSN, October 25, 1999, p. 7) and yet she did not leave word
there that she was going to the hospitals entrance gate to look for the
childs mother, just in case Roselle would return looking for her sister.

ii. This assertion would have gained currency - if not for prosecution
witness Barangay Kagawad Emerento Torres who testified that he saw
Roselle struggling with appellant.

2. W/N kidnapping and failure to return a minor is committed?

 b. Yes. The case satisfies the two essential elements under Article 267 of the RPC,
namely: (1) the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person; and (2)
the offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians.

c. When Roselle entrusted Roselyn to appellant before setting out on an errand for
appellant to look for ice water, the first element was accomplished and when
appellant refused to return the baby to Roselle despite her continuous pleas, the
crime was effectively accomplished.

3. W/N moral and nominal damages may be awarded?

Yes. Moral damages may be recovered, under Art. 2219 of NCC since the case is
analogous to illegal and arbitrary detention. Award of nominal damages is also allowed
under Art. 2221 of NCC. However, considering the relatively short duration of the
kidnapping, penalty is reduced to only P10,000 each.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed judgment finding appellant Teresa Bernardo
y Tambien guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor
is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the awards for moral and nominal damages are
reduced to Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) each. No special pronouncement is made as to costs.

SO ORDERED.