4/13/2017 G.R.No.

84048

TodayisThursday,April13,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.84048February15,1990

THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
LETICIASANIDADDEDELSOCORRO,defendantappellant.

TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.

CitizensLegalAssistanceOfficefordefendantappellant.

PADILLA,J.:

InanInformationdocketedasCriminalCaseNo.57828oftheRegionalTrialCourtofPasig,MetroManila,Leticia
SanidaddeDelSocorrowaschargedwiththecrimeofKidnappingcommittedasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe11thdayofFebruary,1984,intheMunicipalityofMandaluyong,MetroManila,
Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,did,then
andtherewilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslykidnaponeCLAIRESANCHEZ,aminorbelowseven(7)
yearsold,forthepurposeofpermanentlyseparatingsaidchildfromEVELYNSANCHEZyTEJERO
and ANTONIO SANCHEZ parents of the said child and thereafter sold to one DRA. APOLONIA
VILLAMAYOR,intheamountofP700.00.

Thedefendantwasdulyarrestedandbroughtbeforethecourt.Whenarraigned,shepleaded"notguilty"tothe
crimechargedintheInformation.Shewasplacedontrialandafterhearingtheevidenceadducedduringthetrial,
JudgeDomingoR.GarciafoundthedefendantguiltyofthecrimechargedintheInformationandsentencedher
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided for by law, without
pronouncementastocosts.

Fromthissentence,thedefendanthasappealedtothisCourt.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that between 10:00 o'clock and 11:00 o'clock in the morning of 11
February 1984, while Evelyn Sanchez was in her residence at No. 162 Kalentong St., Mandaluyong, Metro
Manila,cookingfoodforlunch,herfouryearolddaughternamedClaireSanchezwentoutofthehousetoplay
with other children. After she had finished cooking, Evelyn called her child to get inside and eat her lunch.
Receivingnoresponse,shewentoutofthehouseandlookedforherchildintheneighborhood.Butthechildwas
nowheretobefound.SheinquiredfromtheotherchildrenwhowereplayingwhereherdaughterClairewasand
shewasinformedthatClairewastakenbyawomanwhomthechildrenthoughtwastheauntofClaire.Shewas
alsoinformedthatherchildhadresistedingoingwiththewomanandcriedforhermother,butthewomancarried
thechildandgotonboardajeepneyandlefttheplace.ThedisappearanceofClaireSanchezwas,consequently,
reportedtotheMandaluyongpolice.1

Severaldaysafterthedisappearanceofthecold,thedistraughtmotherwasinformedbyarelativethatacertain
doctorinAngono,Rizal,hadboughtachildwhofittedthedescriptionofherdaughter,Claire. 2Forthwith,shewent
toAngono,Rizalandwithsometownpolicemen,wenttoseetheladyphysician,oneDr.Villamayor,whotoldthepolicemen
thatshehadgiventhechildtoherauntwhosehousewasatE.delaPazStreet.Thechildwasthentakenfromtheauntof
the doctor and brought to the municipal building of Angono where she was reunited with her mother. The lady physician
advised the mother and the policemen however, not to leave immediately as the woman who brought the child to her was
comingbackonthatdaytocollectsomemoney.3

The lady physician, Dr. Apolonia Merced Villamayor, declared that at about 10:30 o'clock in the evening of 11
February1984,awoman,whomshelateridentifiedtobetheaccused,LeticiaSanidaddeDelSocorro,cameto
herclinicatNo.91Int.QuezonAve.,Angono,Rizal,withababygirl.Sheaskedtheaccusedwhatwaswrongwith
thechildandtheaccusedansweredthatnothingwaswrongwiththechildbutthatshewantedtheladyphysician
to take care of the child, whom she referred to as her daughter, because her husband had died just two (2)
monthsagoandshecouldnotaffordtofeedherbroodoffour(4)girlsandtwo(2)boys.Theaccusedalsoasked
for the amount of P700.00, as a "donation to enable her to open a small sarisari store. Feeling pity and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_84048_1990.html 1/3
4/13/2017 G.R.No.84048
compassionforthechild,shegavetheaccusedP400.00whichshehadatthetime,andtoldhertocomeback
thefollowingSaturdayforthebalance.Aftertheaccusedhadleft,shegavethechildtoherspinsteraunt,Lourdes
Saguinsin,wholivedinE.delaPazSt.,Angono,Rizal.

ThefollowingSaturday,two(2)policemenfromAngono,Rizal,cametoherclinicandinquiredifshehadseena
girlofaboutfour(4)yearsofage.Shetoldthepolicementhatachildwasgiventoherforadoptiontheprevious
Saturday, and that she gave the child to her aunt Lourdes. She also told the policemen that the woman who
broughtthechildtoherwascomingbackthatdaytocollectthebalanceofP300.00.Sheaskedthemtowaitfor
her.

Atabout10:00o'clockintheevening,sureenoughtheaccusedcamebacktotheclinic.Dr.Villamayorpointed
out the accused to the policemen who then arrested her and brought her to the municipal building for
investigation.4

The accused admitted having brought the child, Claire Sanchez, to Dr. Villamayor in Angono, Rizal. But she
deniedhavingkidnappedthechildorhavingsoldhertothedoctor.Herversionoftheincident,astestifiedtoby
herincourt,isthatatabout11:00o'clockinthemorningof11February1984,whileshewasonherwayhometo
the Javier Compound, San Francisco Village, Muzon, Taytay, Rizal, she saw the child, Claire, standing on the
sidewalkinfrontoftheJoseRizalCollegeinMandaluyong.Thechildwascryingandwhensheaskedwhy,the
childtoldherthattwo(2)childrenhadquarelledwithher.Thechildalsotoldherthatherlolahadrefusedtotake
heralong.Sheaskedthechildwhereshewasliving,butthechilddidnotpointtoanyparticularplaceordirection.
Outofpityforthechild,shebroughtthechildalongwithher.TheywaitedforabusforAngono,Rizal,andupon
reachingAngono,sheentrustedthechildtoDr.Villamayorforsafekeeping.Shedeniedhavingaskedorreceived
moneyfromDr.Villamayor.5

In this appeal, the defendantappellant, through counsel, raises mainly the question of credibility of witnesses.
Defendantappellantassailsthetrialcourtforgivingweightandcredencetothetestimonyofthewitnessesforthe
prosecution despite the contradictions and inconsistencies in their testimony which would render them doubtful
andunreliable.

Wefind,however,thatthevariancebetweenthetestimonyoftheprosecutionwitnessesincourtandtheirsworn
statements,aswellastheallegedcontradictionsandinconsistenciespointedoutbytheappellantinherBrief,are
not substantial as to destroy their credibility. The alleged variance refers to minor details which would tend to
showthesincerityofthewitnessesandtheabsenceofconnivancebetweenthem.

Besides,thetestimonyofthewitnessesfortheprosecution,unlikethedenialofthedefendantappellant,appears
tobeconsistentwiththetruthandthenaturalcourseofthings.Furthermore,thesewitnesseshadnomotiveto
falsifythetruthandimputetothedefendantappellant,whomtheymetonlyontheoccasioncomplainedof,the
commissionofsograveanoffenseaskidnappingofaminorchild.

The claim of the defendantappellant that the child, Claire Sanchez, went voluntarily with her, cannot be given
credence.EvelynSanchez,themotherofthechild,Claire,declaredthatwhensheaskedherdaughterupontheir
reunion if she went voluntarily with the defendantappellant, the child answered that she did not. Evelyn further
declared that when she asked the children in the neighborhood, with whom her daughter was playing, if Claire
hadresisted,thechildrenansweredthatClairehadresisted,sothattheaccusedhadtocarryhertothejeep.6

Besides, the defendantappellant herself testified that when she picked up the child in Mandaluyong, her only
thoughtwastobringthechildtoDr.VillamayorinAngono,Rizal.7Shedidnotbringthechildtoher(defendant's)own
home in Muzon, Taytay, Rizal even if this place is nearer than Angono, because, according to the defendant, she already
hasmanychildrenofherownandtheyhavenofoodtoeat. 8Butifshereallypitiedthechildwhomshedescribedascrying
onthesidewalk,why,itcanbeasked,didshenotbringhertothenearestpolicestationinMandaluyongAnd,whydidshe
thinkonlyofDr.Villamayorwho,accordingtoher,shedidnotevenknowpersonally,butonlyinname? 9Herexplanationis
asfollows:

QWhyofallpeopleinthePhilippinesingeneralTaytayandAngonoinparticular,whydo
youhavetoentrustthischildtoDr.Villamayor?

ABecauseItrustedDr.VillamayorinthesamemannerthatshetrustedmeandIknow
wherewewillgivethechild.10

IsitpossiblethenthatthedefendantappellantwentdirectlytoDr.Villamayorbecauseofthecommonknowledge
intheneighborhoodthatherspinsterauntwantedtoadoptthechild?11One,ofcourse,canonlysurmise.

To cut down the illicit traffic of children, we urge the prosecution of persons to whom children are sold or given
awayfor a valuable consideration. Oftentimes, it is only the abductor or kidnapper who is prosecuted. Yet, the
persontowhomthekidnappedchildisgivenandwhomayhavewittinglyorunwittinglygiventhemotivationfor
theabduction,goesscotfree,evenastheintentionofthispersonistokeepandraisethechildashisown.By
keepingthechild,underthesecircumstances,ishenotguiltyofseriousillegaldetention?

Backtothecaseatbar,itisouropinion,andwesohold,thattheevidenceadducedduringthetrialissufficientto
justifytheconclusionsofthetrialcourt.Therefore,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtshouldbeaffirmed.

WHEREFORE,thejudgmentappealedfromisherebyAFFIRMED,withoutpronouncementastocosts.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_84048_1990.html 2/3
4/13/2017 G.R.No.84048
SOORDERED.

MelencioHerrera,Paras,SarmientoandRegalado,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1TSNofJuly3,1984,pp.69tsnofJuly30,1984,pp.910.

2TSNofJuly3,1984,p.10.

3TSNofAug.8,1984,pp.56.

4TSNofAugust29,1984,pp.417.

5TSNofJune19,1985,pp.312tsnofNovember17,1986,pp.28.

6TSNofJuly30,1984,pp.4,910.

7TSNofJune19,1985,p.11.

8TSNofNovember17,1986,p.9.

9TSNofJune19,1985,pp.911.

10TSNofNovember17,1986,p.10.

11TSNofAugust29,1984,p.30,

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_84048_1990.html 3/3