THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. APOLINAR ACOSTA Y KILATAN AND CONSOLACION BRAVO Y VILLANUEVA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Apolinar Acosta and Consolacion Bravo were charged before the Court
of First Instance of Manila with kidnapping in that they connived in
the taking of a minor for the purpose of extorting ransom from his
parents, and having been found guilty, they were sentenced to suffer
the penalty of death. Because of the nature of the penalty, the case
was submitted to us for review in accordance with law.

In the morning of April 6, 1956, while she was preparing food in her
house located at Geronimo St., Sampaloc, Manila, Melecia Karin, wife of
Juan Albaira, noticed that her son was missing. The couple searched for
the child in the neighborhood and when their efforts failed they
reported the matter to the police authorities. At about 7:00 o’clock in
the morning of the following day, April 7, 1956, Melecia Karin was
called by a neighbor telling her that a person wanted to talk to her
husband over the telephone. As her husband was out, Melecia answered
the telephone. The woman on the other end of the line was talking to
Melecia in English even if the latter asked her to speak in Tagalog
because she did not understand English, and so Melecia had to request
one Mrs. Mendoza to talk with the woman on the line. After the
telephone conversation, Mrs. Mendoza informed Melecia that the woman
was asking for P75.00 for the return of her son, the amount to be
placed at the door of the Echague chapel between 9:00 and 10:00 o’clock
of the same day.

Melecia set to look for the money, but unable to wait for her, her
husband Juan Albaira borrowed from Capt. Garces, a neighbor, the amount
of P15.00 which he placed in an envelope and deposited it at the time
and place designated. Capt. Garces and Juan Albaira then went to
Precinct No. 2 to ask for .detectives to help; in arresting the
culprit. After placing1 the money in an envelope together with a letter
as above stated, the two entered a restaurant while the detectives
posted themselves in front of the chapel inside a store and observed
through a window the person who would pick up the envelope. Before
10:00 o’clock, a man coming from Quiapo stopped in front of the chapel
and upon seeing the envelope stood for a while and looked around. Then,
taking two paces he bent down and picked up the envelope, folded it
once and placed it inside his pocket. When he proceeded on his way
southward along Echague St., the detectives followed him and grabbed
him at a spot 30 meters away from the chapel. They asked the man where
the boy was but because he got frightened and was nervous he failed to
give any answer. He gave his name as Apolinar Acosta. He was brought to
Precinct No. 2 for investigation.

At about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of April 6, 1956, Consolation
Bravo went to the house of Antonia de Viernes at 1617 P. Herrera,
Tondo, Manila, bringing along with her the missing child. She wanted to
leave the child with her telling her that she quarreled with her
husband. Mrs. Viernes refused to accept the child, but Consolacion
Bravo left the child just the same saying that she would return for him
at 5:00 o’clock that same afternoon. At about 3:00 o’clock Mrs. Viernes
had the child brought to the Meisic Police Station with the information
that it was left at her house by Consolacion Bravo; whom she had known
for about four years’ before the incident. Then Consolacion Bravo was
taken and investigated.

In the investigation Bravo stated that she took the child on April
6, 1956 and first brought him to Camp Murphy at the house of Miss
Herminia Ocampo where she left him returning only for the child the
following morning before bringing him to the house of Mrs. Viernes.
When she left the child with Mrs. Viernes, she went shopping after
which she went home at about 3:00 o’clock p.m. She intended to get the
boy that same afternoon but while on her way she was met by two persons
and the mother of the child and was’ taken to the police headquarters
at Isaac Peral. She met there Apolinar Acosta. Her statement was taken
down in writing. While her statement was being taken down, Consolacion
pointed to Acosta who was then sitting three meters away as her
confederate. When thus indicated, Acosta just, stared at Consolacion
without uttering, a word. The statement of Acosta was also taken down
in writing.

According to Juan Albaira, Jr., the kidnapped child, he was there at
Guipit St. when he was taken by Consolacion Bravo and brought to a
house at 8th Avenue, Camp Murphy. He was left there crying while
Consolacion was away because Consolation did not want to bring him
home, and although he wanted to go home, he could not do so because he
did not know his way and was warned not to leave. When Consolacion
arrived at the house the following morning, she told him that they were
going home but instead they went to the sea where he was asked to take
a bath. They then proceeded to the house of Mrs. Viernes in Tondo where
the boy was left behind when Consolacion went shopping after warning
the boy not to leave the house. While alone the boy kept on crying
until he was brought to the police precinct by two elder children of
Mrs. Viernes.

Consolacion Bravo admitted having taken the boy away from the house
of his parents and bringing him to Camp Murphy and later to Tondo where
she placed him in the house of Antonia Viernes preparatory to carrying
out her conceived plan. She also admitted having made the telephone
call to inform the parents of the boy that they should place money at
the door of the Echague chapel if they wanted to get him back. However,
she denied having any intent to kidnap the boy for ransom alleging that
she only wanted to test the love of the boy’s parents for him as she
had observed that they were not as loving to him as she was whom she
claims to be her godson. She stated that she intended to bring home the
child in the afternoon of April 7, 1956 after making her shopping at
about 3:00 o’clock and had taken food for her house, but she was not
able to do so because while she was on her way to Tondo to get the boy
from the house of Mrs. Viernes, she was met by two detectives who
brought her to their headquarters at Isaac Peral. She denied the truth
of some of the statements appearing in Exhibit B alleging that she
never pointed to Apolinar Acosta as her confederate. She claimed that
she signed said exhibit because she was made to understand that she
would be utilized as a state witness.

Her father Mariano Bravo testified as to her behavior after her
treatment in the National Mental Hospital. He said that after she had
returned from the hospital, she ran away from home but later returned
for her clothes; that while at home she cooked food in such a way that
it could not be eaten; that she destroyed her clothes with a pair of
scissors, and when asked why she, was doing it she would not give any
answer.

Apolinar Acosta, in turn, denied having any conspiracy, with
Consolacion Bravo in kidnapping the missing boy although he admitted
having picked up the envelope deposited at the entrance of the Echague
chapel. He claimed that he found the envelope at the sidewalk in front
of the chapel when he was on his way home at Pasay coming from Sta.
Cruz, Manila, where he went at 6:00 o’clock in the morning as he used
to do, and that when he saw the money and the envelope he immediately
put the same in his pocket. He admitted, however, that when he was
grabbed by the detectives he made no protest nor uttered any word.

The claim of appellant Consolacion Bravo that she has not committed
any act of illegal detention in the person of boy Juan Albaira, Jr. for
which she may be held responsible for kidnapping as charged cannot be
entertained in the face of the facts she herself admitted in her
testimony. Thus, she admitted having taken the boy from the home of his
parents and brought him to several places with the warning hot to leave
until her return while at the same time she made a telephone call
conveying the message to his parents that they should place money in an
envelope and deposit it at the door of the Echague chapel if they
wanted to get the boy back. She stated in Exhibit B that Mrs. Albaira
should deposit the money between 9:00 and 10:00 o’clock in the morning
of the same day at the door of Echague chapel and as though to1
implement that instruction, almost at the time indicated, a man showed
up in front of the chapel and upon seeing the envelope stood for a
while and looked around and perceiving no suspicion picked up the
envelope, folded it and placed it into his pocket. This man turned out
to be her co-accused Apolinar Acosta.

Of course, Consolacion Bravo tried to explain that the purpose of
her scheme was not exactly to take away or kidnap the boy for ransom or
to extort money but that she only wanted to test the love of the boy’s
parents for him for she had observed that they were not as loving as
she was to him whom she claims to be her godson. But such scheme is
hard to believe not only considering the ingenious way it was conceived
but because we see no plausible reason for such test of affection of
the parents towards the boy considering that she has been in continuous
association with the boy as well as with his family so much so that she
claims to be his godmother. The truth is that such pretense is belied
not only by what she stated in the statement Exhibit B but by her own
attitude in planning such scheme in conspiracy with her co-accused. The
statement Exhibit B in the main dwells on the different schemes by
which money could be obtained through extortion or kidnapping and a
cursory reading thereof cannot but bring one to the conclusion that as
agreed and conceived between Consolacion Bravo and her co-accused
Apolinar Acosta she set to lure the boy into going with her without the
knowledge of his parents as part of their scheme to extort money taking
advantage of her moral and spiritual influence over the boy. Certainly,
such a conduct and behavior do not jibe with her last minute avowal
that her demand for money was merely to test the parents affection or
love for their child.

It is true that Consolacion Bravo claims that some of the answers
appearing in Exhibit B are not hers but were merely suggested or taught
to her by the detective who conducted the investigation, but such claim
deserves scant belief considering the details with which they were
framed which the investigator could not have known at the time. They
could have been supplied by her alone. And as the trial court well
observed, “Her answer to the questions in Exhibit ‘B’ as well as her
testimony during the trial induce the Court to believe that accused
Consofacion Bravo was not insane or otherwise suffering some mental
disease at the time of the commission of the crime. Her narrations
reflect spontaneity and coherence which psychologically can not be
associated with a mind affected by a mental disease.”

An attempt was made to prove that appellant Consolacion Bravo was
suffering from mental ailment through the testimony of Dr. Cristeta V.
Fulgencio, a psychiatrist of the National Mental Hospital, in that she
had been admitted and confined in that hospital because she showed
signs or symptoms of acute depression of mind and that during the first
days of her admission she was so sick that she could be classified as
insane. But this attempt is now of no moment considering that,
according to the same doctor, after four electric shock treatments the
patient was found to have been restored to her normal state of mind, as
in fact she was finally discharged on January 10, 1955 and since then
she has not been returned to the hospital. Note, that the instant crime
was committed on April 6, 1956.

There can also be no doubt as regards the complicity of appellant
Apolinar Acosta considering his behavior before, during and after the
commission of the crime. Remember that in the statement Exhibit B
subscribed by Consolacion Bravo in his presence, she made a narration
of the various ways by which one can make easy money through extortion
and kidnapping attributing the same to Acosta and as to which he did
not lift a finger to deny. And when he was pointed to by Consolacion as
the person, mentioned by her in her statement, he merely stared at her
and did not utter a word. Then we have his behavior when he went to the
Echague chapel to pick up the envelope containing the ransom money when
before doing so he stood for awhile then looked around and when he did
not perceive any suspicion he picked up the envelope and placed it in
his pocket. And what is his reaction to such incriminating evidence. He
merely said that he picked up the envelope because he saw it in the
sidewalk near the chapel and when he found that it contained money he
put it in his pocket, but he did not know it was ransom money. He
denied having any acquaintance with Consolacion Bravo and disclaimed
any knowledge of the plan of the latter to kidnap the boy. But such
denial was not given credit by the trial court on the basis of the
circumstances of this case.

Thus, in discrediting the story of this appellant, the lower court
said: “In the first place, the imputation of Pat. Primo Muñoz to the
effect that when he was arrested and was asked where the boy was he
became pale and could not answer, was hot denied by said accused. He
did not deny also the imputation of the said patrolman that when they
took the envelope from his pocket he (accused) became nervous. The
natural reaction of a person who only found something on the street
when arrested by a policeman is to explain right then and there that he
merely found the same. This, accused Apolinar Acosta did not do. In the
second place, the imputation of Det. Lazaro Tolosa, Jr., to the effect
that during the investigation when Consolacion Bravo pointed to Acosta,
the latter did not say a word and only looked down on the floor, was
not denied by the said accused. * * * In the third place, in his own
written statement, (Exhibit ‘2’), he admitted that he was arrested by
the policeman at about 10:00 o’clock in the morning of April 7,1956
when he picked up an envelope containing money in front of the chapel
at Echague. The time of the picking up of the envelope coincides with
the time given by accused Consolacion Bravo when the money should be
deposited at the door of the Echague chapel. This coincidence coupled
with the fact that accused Apolinar Acosta does not appear to be a
total stranger to accused Consolacion Bravo has convinced the Court
that the two accused had some previous understanding relative to the
commission of the crime charged by the prosecution.”

The next question to be determined is whether or not the element of
restraint is present as to constitute the crime of kidnapping with
which the appellants are charged. On this point the trial court made
this observation: “While it is true that the boy was playing while he
was in the house at Murphy on April 6, 1956, the fact remains that he
was under the control of the accused Consolacion Bravo who left him
there, as he could not leave that house until she shall have returned
for him. Because of his tender age and the fact that he did not know
the way back home, he was then and there in a way deprived of his
liberty. It is like putting him in a prison or in an asylum where he
may have freedom of locomotion but not the freedom to leave it at will.
The same thing can be said of his stay in the house at Tondo, where he
was left by her on April 7, 1956.” In addition, we may say that because
the boy was of tender age and he was warned not to leave until her
return by his godmother, he was practically a captive in the sense that
he could not leave because of his fear to violate such instruction.

The crime committed is kidnapping as denned in the last paragraph of
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
1084. However, we share the opinion of the trial court that the two
appellants do not appear to belong to that type of kidnappers who
deserve the supreme penalty of death considering the small amount
involved and the circumstances under which it was committed. In view
hereof, and for lack of the requisite vote, the Court has decided to
impose upon them the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is modified by imposing upon appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David JJ., concur.