You are on page 1of 3

People of the Philippines v.

Ty
Class digest edited by U

FACTS:

 Vicente Ty and Carmen Ty were charged with the crime of kidnapping and failure to
return a minor in an information filed by 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor of Kalookan City
Rosauro J. Silverio
 November 18, 1987 complainant Sombong brought her sick daughter Arabella, 7
months old, for treatment to the Sir John Medical and Maternity Clinic located at No.
121 First Avenue, Grace Park, Kalookan City which was owned and operated by the
accused-appellants.
o Arabella was diagnosed to be suffering from bronchitis and diarreah and was
confined
o 3 days later, arabella was ready to be discharged but complainant wasn’t around
o Week later complainant came back but didn’t have the 300 pesos for hospital bills
o Complainant decided to leave child at nursery for 50 pesos a day after
confiding in accused appelant Dr. Ty that no one would take care of her at home
o Arabella was transferred from ward to nursery
o Hospital bills started to to accumulate. Dr. Ty suggested that a yaya be hired for
400 pesos instead of the daily 50 pesos nursery fee.
o Arabella transferred again from nursery to extension of the clinic which serve as
residence for hospital staff
 Nothing was heard about complainant from then on. Efforts in communicating or
contacting her were unsuccessful.
o Dr. Ty was prompted to inform the Barangay Captain of the child’s
abandonment.
o Hospital staff took turns taking care of Arabella
 2 years after child’s abandonment, Dr Fe Malonggaa dentists at the clinic suggested
that Arabella be entrusted to a guardian who could give her love and affection.
o Dr Malongga gave the child to her Aunt Lilibeth Neri
 In 1992 Complainant came back to claim the daughter she abandoned some five (5)
years back, but her please were unanswered.
o filed a petition for habeas corpus against accused-appellants with the RTC of QC
o denied for lack of jurisdiction detention being done in Kalookan
 October 13, 1992, complainant filed a petition for habeas corpus with the RTC of QC,
against the alleged guardians of her daughter: Marietta Neri Alviar and Lilibeth
Neri.
o Petition granted and TC ordered the two guardians to deliver the child to
complainant having found that the child (Christina Grace Neri) was that of the
complainant.
o Court of Appeals, reversed decision finding that cristina and complainant’s daughter
are not one and the same person.
Issue: W/N Accused-Appelants are guilty of the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor.
(NO)
1. COURT STARTS WITH RECAP OF THE CA CASE :

 In the case of Sombong V. CA which the SC agrees with, the CA ruled that “Petitioner
does not have the right of custody over the minor Cristina because, by the evidence
disclosed before the court a quo, Cristina has not been shown to be petitioners
daughter, Arabella”
o Petitioner’s own witness Dr. Trono that there were several babies left in the clinic so
couldn’t be sure if it was Arabella that was given to respondents
o Private respondents obtained Custody of Christina only in April 1988 but Witnesses
like Dr Ty testify that Arabella had been confined till 1989
o All testimonies juxtaposed lead to the conclusion that Christina is not Arabella
 Justice Laourdes Jaguros set the case for hearing on August 30, 1993 primarily for the
purpose of observing petitioners demeanor towards the minor Cristina.
o Petitioner barely even glanced at Cristina and there was no tearful embrace
between them
o Throughout the case ponente noticed no signs of endearment between mother
and child.
2. EVEN CONSIDERING THAT CRISTINA NERI AND ARABELLA SOMBONG ARE
THE SAME, THE CASE MUST STILL FALL

 There are two elements under Article 270 that must concur for conviction, 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.
o The court goes into a dictionary definition of the word deliberate.
o Essentially, the word deliberate as used in the article must imply something more
than mere negligence; it must be premeditated, obstinate, headstrong, foolishly
daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong.
 In the case at bar, there was no deliberate refusal or failure on the part of the accused-
appellants to restore the custody of the complainants child to her.
o When accused appellant learned complainant wanted her daughter back after 5 long
years of neglect, she took all efforts to help her as the child was no longer in the
clinic.
o Accused Appelant Dr Ty did not have the address of Arabella’s guardians so she
asked it from Dr. Fe Malongga who was already working abroad.
o Dr Ty. Personally went to the guardian’s residence, saw the daughter and informed
the guardians that the complainant wanted her daughter back,
o Hence there was no negligence since she personally took efforts to contact the actual
guardians.

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant VICENTE TY and CARMEN TY
are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged and are ordered to be released immediately unless
they are being detained for other lawful causes. Costs de oficio.