G.R. No. 98400. May 23, 1994.
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Cherry Bondoc y Liwanag, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On October 6, 1989, Lucita Romero Corpuz went to the Manila City Jail to visit her detained husband, bringing her 1-year-and-4-month-old daughter, Carla May. She was not allowed to bring the child inside. Accused-appellant Cherry Bondoc, who was standing in front of the jail gate, approached Lucita and volunteered to take care of Carla May, explaining that she pitied her and had already watched over six children that morning. Lucita entrusted Carla May to appellant and visited her husband for fifteen minutes. Upon returning, appellant and Carla May were gone. A woman informed Lucita that appellant had left with the child. Lucita reported the incident to the jail warden and the police.
On October 13, 1989, the Barangay Chairman of Herbosa, Tondo, informed Lucita that a woman had taken Carla May to Dagat-dagatan, Navotas, and was attempting to sell her in Herbosa, Tondo. The woman, appellant Cherry Bondoc, had been arrested. Lucita went to the Herbosa Detachment, saw appellant, and was reunited with Carla May, who was brought by Pat. Willy Capati.
An information for kidnapping for the purpose of selling a minor was filed against appellant. She denied the charge, claiming that a certain “Nerrie” asked her to take care of a young girl at the jail. When Nerrie did not return, appellant claimed she took the child to her sister’s house in Dagat-dagatan. She later went to Angeles City for work, read in the newspaper that the child was reported kidnapped, and then reported to the police that the child was in her custody. The trial court believed the prosecution’s version and convicted appellant of kidnapping under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to incriminating evidence obtained while appellant was under custodial interrogation without the benefit of counsel.
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of kidnapping based on insufficient evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification.
1. The Court agreed with appellant that her verbal admission made during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel was inadmissible in evidence, as it violated her constitutional rights under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution.
2. However, even without the inadmissible admission, the evidence for the prosecution was sufficient to support the conviction. The clear, positive, and credible testimony of the complaining witness, Lucita Romero Corpuz, identifying appellant as the person to whom she entrusted her child and who subsequently failed to return her, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings on witness credibility, noting the spontaneous and straightforward manner of Lucita’s testimony. Appellant’s bare denial was deemed insufficient to overcome the positive identification.
The elements of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 were present: (a) the offender was entrusted with the custody of a minor, and (b) the offender deliberately failed to restore said minor to her parent. The Court found appellant’s claim of innocence unconvincing, noting her failure to report to authorities immediately and her failure to present corroborating witnesses, such as the jail guards.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was affirmed. The Court additionally awarded moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00 to Lucita Romero Corpuz.