G.R. No. L-11954; March 24, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. APOLINAR ACOSTA Y KILATAN and CONSOLACIO BRAVO Y VILLANUEVA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On April 6, 1956, Melecia Karin discovered her son, Juan Albaira Jr., missing from their home in Sampaloc, Manila. The following morning, April 7, a woman called Melecia in English, demanding P75.00 for the boy’s return, to be placed at the door of the Echague chapel between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. Juan Albaira borrowed P15.00, placed it in an envelope with a letter, and deposited it at the designated spot. Detectives observed the area. Before 10:00 a.m., Apolinar Acosta arrived, picked up the envelope, and was arrested 30 meters away. He was identified and brought to the police station.
On the afternoon of April 6, Consolacion Bravo brought the missing child to the house of Antonia de Viernes in Tondo, Manila, claiming she quarreled with her husband and left the child, saying she would return at 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Viernes later had the child taken to the Meisic Police Station. Bravo was subsequently apprehended and investigated. During her investigation, she pointed to Acosta as her confederate. The kidnapped child, Juan Albaira Jr., testified that Bravo took him from Guipit St. to a house in Camp Murphy, left him there crying with a warning not to leave, and the next day took him to Tondo where he was left at Mrs. Viernes’s house.
Bravo admitted taking the boy, making the telephone call for ransom, and bringing him to Camp Murphy and Tondo, but claimed her intent was only to test the parents’ love for the boy, whom she considered her godson, and not to extort ransom. She denied some statements in her written confession (Exhibit B) and claimed she signed it under the belief she would be a state witness. Her father testified about her erratic behavior after treatment at the National Mental Hospital. Acosta admitted picking up the envelope but denied any conspiracy with Bravo, claiming he found it on the sidewalk.

ISSUE

Whether the appellants are guilty of the crime of kidnapping for the purpose of extorting ransom.

RULING

Yes, the appellants are guilty of kidnapping as defined in the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1084 . The Court found that the elements of the crime were present. Consolacion Bravo’s admissions and actions, including taking the child, moving him to different locations, warning him not to leave, and making the ransom call, established the illegal detention. The claim that her purpose was merely to test the parents’ affection was not credible. The act of Acosta in picking up the ransom money at the designated time and place, following the instruction given in the call, evidenced conspiracy between the two. The child, due to his tender age and the instructions given, was deprived of his liberty. However, considering the small amount involved and the circumstances, the Court modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The decision was affirmed with this modification.