Scribd
Upload
303 views2 pages

Acquittal in Kidnapping Case of Minor

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellants of kidnapping and failure to return a minor. The complainant left her daughter at the accused's clinic due to inability to pay bills and lack of care at home. Years later, when the complainant returned, the child was no longer with the clinic but had been transferred to an aunt. The court found no deliberate refusal by the accused to return the child, as they made efforts to help the complainant locate the child. To be guilty under Article 270, one must be entrusted with custody and deliberately fail to restore the minor to parents or guardians, which did not occur here.

Uploaded by

mik
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
303 views2 pages

Acquittal in Kidnapping Case of Minor

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellants of kidnapping and failure to return a minor. The complainant left her daughter at the accused's clinic due to inability to pay bills and lack of care at home. Years later, when the complainant returned, the child was no longer with the clinic but had been transferred to an aunt. The court found no deliberate refusal by the accused to return the child, as they made efforts to help the complainant locate the child. To be guilty under Article 270, one must be entrusted with custody and deliberately fail to restore the minor to parents or guardians, which did not occur here.

Uploaded by

mik
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Ruling: Presents the legal ruling of the case analyzing the failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt for the charged crime.
  • Doctrine: Introduces the legal doctrine related to the offense concerning the custody of a minor and the obligations of the accused.
  • Facts: Details the case facts including testimonies, events, and exchanges involving the accused and complainant surrounding the custody issue.
  • Disposition: Concludes with the disposition of the case, stating the reversal and acquittal of the accused.

People vs.

Ty
G.R. No. 121519. October 30, 1996
Topic: Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor (Art. 270)

Doctrine:
The essential element of the crime is that the offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor but what
is actually punishable is not the kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure or refusal
of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.

Facts:
1. Complainant Johanna Sombong brought her sick daughter Arabella, 7 months old, for treatment
to the Sir John Medical and Maternity Clinic which was owned by the accused-appellants.
2. About 3 days later, Arabella was well and was ready to be discharged but complainant was not
around to take her home. A week later, complainant came back but did not have enough money
to pay the hospital bill.
3. Complainant likewise confided to accused-appellant, Dr. Carmen Ty that no one would take care
of the child at home as she was working.
4. She decided to leave her child to the care of the clinic nursery. Consequently, Arabella was
transferred from the ward to the nursery. Thereafter, hospital bills started to mount and
accumulate.
5. Arabella was then again transferred from the nursery to the extension of the clinic which served
as residence for the hospital staff.
6. From then on, nothing was heard of the complainant. Efforts to get in touch with the complainant
were unsuccessful as she left no address or telephone number where she can be reached.
7. This development prompted Dr. Ty to notify the barangay captain of the child’s abandonment.
8. 2 years after, Dr. Mallonga, the clinic’s dentist, gave the child to her aunt Lilibeth Neri, as the
child’s guardian.
9. Complainant came back to claim the daughter she abandoned some 5 years back. When her
pleas allegedly went unanswered, she filed a petition for habeas corpus against accused-
appellants. It was denied.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellants are guilty of kidnapping and failure to return a minor?

Ruling: No.

Before a conviction for kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal
Code can be had, two elements must concur, namely: (a) the offender has been entrusted with the
custody of the minor, and (b) the offender deliberately fails to restore said minor to his parents or
guardians.

The essential element herein is that the offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor but what is
actually punishable is not the kidnapping of the minor, as the title of the article seems to indicate, but
rather the deliberate failure or refusal of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or
guardians.

In the case at bar, it is evident that there was no deliberate refusal or failure on the part of the accused-
appellants to restore the custody of the complainant’s child to her. When the accused-appellants learned
that complainant wanted her daughter back they tried their best to help herein complainant find the child
as the latter was no longer under the clinic’s care. Accused-appellant Dr. Ty did not have the address of
Arabella’s guardians but as soon as she obtained it from Dr. Fe Mallonga who was already working
abroad, she personally went to the guardians’ residence and informed them that herein complainant
wanted her daughter back.

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.
Disposition: Reversed. Acquitted.

You might also like