PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LYDIA RAMA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On March 10, 1986, Cristina Bungalon, the 5-year old daughter of the
spouses Milagros and Wilfredo Bungalon disappeared while playing near their
house at the mini-park at Del Pan Tulunan Center, Tondo, Manila. Private complainant Milagros Bungalon looked
everywhere for her missing daughter and reported the incident to the police
authorities, but her daughter was nowhere to be found.

On April 1, 1986, Lydia Rama was arrested by the police
authorities as a suspected kidnapper of several missing children. Upon being informed by the police of the
arrest of Rama, private complainant and her mother-in-law proceeded to Precinct
2 wherein Rama was being detained. Private complainant showed Rama a picture of her missing daughter and
Rama told her that she sold said child for P400.00 and she was in a house in
the Muslim Center Compound, Quiapo, Manila.

In the afternoon of April 1, 1986, private complainant and her
husband went with the police team that raided the Muslim Center Compound. The police recovered several children from
the house of the Muslim buyers in said compound. Among the children recovered was the missing daughter of private
complainant.

Hence, in due course, an information charging Lydia T. Rama and
Emelinda D. Renteno with the crime of kidnapping was filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila.

Upon arraignment both accused entered a plea of not guilty and
the trial proceeded. However, accused
Renteno was ordered confined at the National Mental Hospital so the proceedings
against her were suspended until she shall have been cured of her mental
illness. Hence, the trial proceeded
only against accused Rama.

On July 20, 1987, a decision was rendered by the trial court
convicting Rama of the crime of kidnapping and sentencing her to the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the cost.^[1]

The accused now interposes this appeal alleging the sole assigned
error that the trial court convicted her of the crime charged based on her
alleged extrajudicial confession which was made without the assistance of
counsel.

The appeal is without merit.

A reading of the decision of the court a quo does
not show that there was any extrajudicial confession on which the conviction
was predicated.

What appears is that when private complainant Milagros Bungalon
was informed by the police that the appellant was in custody as a suspect in the
kidnapping of several children, Milagros showed appellant a picture of her
missing daughter. Upon seeing the
picture, appellant told Milagros she sold her daughter for P400.00 and she was
then in a home at the Muslim Center Compound.

This admission of appellant may not be considered an
extrajudicial confession. She was not
under investigation by the police. Milagros was not a law enforcement agent but a helpless mother searching
for a missing daughter. Apparently,
appellant sympathized with her plight and volunteered the foregoing
information.

Moreover, even if said conversation between Milagros and
appellant may be categorized as an extrajudicial confession, it was not the
sole basis of the conviction of the appellant. It was when the police with private complainant, acting on the lead
given by appellant, found the missing child in the house at the Muslim Center
Compound, that the trial court was persuaded in rendering the verdict of
conviction.

The situation is not unlike that of a suspected thief who admits
to the police that he stole certain goods and revealed that he hid the same
under the house of a neighbor. While
the extrajudicial confession without the assistance of counsel may not be
admissible in evidence against him, the recovery of the stolen goods in the
very place indicated by the suspect is clear evidence of his guilt.

Kidnapping is a serious offense. More so, if the victims are minor children, as in this case, the
motivation of which is pure greed and profit, as they are sold for a song. This is the reason why under Article 267 of
the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for this offense is reclusion perpetua
to death. However, the penalty of death
may not be imposed under the Constitution.

One last word. It is
about time Congress seriously looks into the category of heinous offenses as
contemplated under the Constitution, whereby the death penalty may be imposed,^[2]
including kidnapping, if only to contain the apparently worsening peace and
order situation in the country.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in
toto with costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Pages 13 to 14, Rollo.

^[2]
Section 19, Article III, 1987 Constitution.