In the case of People vs. Bernardo, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Teresa Bernardo for kidnapping and failure to return a minor. The Court underscored that the essence of this crime lies not in the initial taking, but in the deliberate refusal to restore the minor to their guardians. Bernardo’s claim of innocent intent was undermined by witness testimony and logical inconsistencies, leading to her conviction. The practical implication is a clear warning against those who betray custodial trust, with significant penalties for those who fail to return a minor entrusted to their care.

The Errands of Deceit: When a Simple Favor Conceals a Sinister Plot

The narrative unfolds on May 13, 1999, at Fabella Memorial Hospital, where Rosita Tolibas and her two daughters, Maria Roselle and the infant Rosalyn, were present for medical appointments. During their wait, Teresa Bernardo befriended the young Roselle and, under the guise of a small favor, asked her to buy ice water, entrusting herself with the care of the 15-day-old Rosalyn. This seemingly innocuous act masked a darker intent, as Bernardo attempted to flee with the child, setting off a chain of events that led to her arrest and subsequent conviction.

Building on this, the legal framework governing such cases is found in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, which specifically addresses “Kidnapping and failure to return a minor.” This provision stipulates that:

Article 267. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor — The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.

As such, the core issue before the Court was to determine whether Bernardo’s actions met the criteria for a deliberate failure to return the minor. The prosecution presented compelling evidence that challenged Bernardo’s defense. Roselle’s testimony indicated that Bernardo used a deceptive tactic to gain custody of Rosalyn. Barangay Kagawad Emerento Torres testified to witnessing Roselle struggling with Bernardo, shouting for her sister, and Torres’ account directly contradicted Bernardo’s claim that she was merely searching for the child’s mother.

Consider the contrast between the versions of events presented by the prosecution and the defense:

Prosecution’s View	Defense’s View
Bernardo gained custody through deception, asking Roselle to buy ice water.	Roselle asked Bernardo to hold the baby and then ran away.
Roselle struggled with Bernardo, trying to stop her from leaving.	Bernardo claimed she was looking for the baby’s mother and was surprised by Roselle’s accusations.
A witness testified to hearing Roselle shout, “Akina ang kapatid ko” (“Give me my sibling back”).	Bernardo maintained she did not intend to kidnap the child.

The Court scrutinized Bernardo’s version of events, finding it illogical and inconsistent. The implausibility of a young girl entrusting her infant sibling to a stranger and then running away undermined Bernardo’s credibility. Further damaging her defense was the fact that, despite knowing of an information counter, she failed to notify them of her intention to leave with the baby. This omission suggested a deliberate attempt to conceal her actions. This was also seen when appellant pinched Roselle on her right side of her belly so she would let go (TSN, October 25, 1999, p. 3).

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized that the essence of the crime lies in the “deliberate” failure to return the minor. As cited in People vs. Bondoc, 232 SCRA 478 [1997] are two essential elements: (1) the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person; and (2) the offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians (People vs. Bondoc, 232 SCRA 478 [1997]).

The Court, in the final ruling, modified the lower court’s decision regarding damages. While it upheld the conviction, it reduced the amounts awarded for moral and nominal damages from P300,000 to P10,000 and from P50,000 to P10,000, respectively. The Court reasoned that while moral damages were justified due to the crime being analogous to illegal detention, the initial amounts were excessive given the short duration of the kidnapping. Likewise, although the invasion of rights warranted nominal damages, the reduced amount was deemed more appropriate considering the circumstances. However, taking into consideration the fact that appellant had custody of the child only for a few minutes before being apprehended, we find the amount of P300,000.00 awarded by the trial court to be exorbitant.  We therefore reduce such amount to P10,000.00.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Teresa Bernardo deliberately failed to return the minor, Rosalyn Tolibas, to her mother, thus constituting the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code.
What is the main element of the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor?	The essential element of this crime is not the initial taking of the minor, but the deliberate failure of the person entrusted with the minor’s custody to restore the minor to their parents or guardians.
What evidence undermined Bernardo’s defense?	Testimonies from Roselle Tolibas and Barangay Kagawad Emerento Torres undermined Bernardo’s defense, as they contradicted her claim of innocent intent and indicated a deliberate attempt to flee with the child.
Why did the court reduce the moral and nominal damages?	The court reduced the damages because, while the crime justified an award, the initial amounts were considered excessive given the relatively short duration of the kidnapping.
What does “deliberate” mean in the context of this crime?	In this context, “deliberate” implies more than mere negligence; it suggests a premeditated, intentionally wrong action, or even a foolishly daring or maliciously conceived act.
Why was Bernardo’s story not believable?	The Court found it illogical for Roselle, a stranger, to leave her child to Bernardo, and the claim about looking for the baby’s mother was undermined when witnesses described a struggle over the baby.
What are moral damages as awarded in the case?	Moral damages serve to compensate for emotional distress, anxiety, and suffering experienced by the victim as a result of the crime, and they are often justified when the crime is analogous to illegal detention or arrest.
Why did Bernardo pinch Roselle?	Roselle testified that the appellant pinched her so that she will let go. It suggests that Roselle was holding on to appellant to prevent her from leaving with Roselyn.

In conclusion, the People vs. Bernardo case serves as a stern reminder of the legal consequences awaiting those who violate the trust placed in them regarding the care of minors. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that failing to return a minor to their rightful guardians is a grave offense that carries significant penalties, protecting the rights and well-being of the most vulnerable members of society. For any breach of trust regarding children, the law ensures appropriate recourse.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Teresa Bernardo y Tambien, G.R. No. 144316, March 11, 2002