G.R. No. 81020 - People vs. Gutierrez y Franco

On 13 July 1984, Lilia Gutierrez y Franco obtained custody of Hazel Elpedes, a 2½-year-old minor, from her sister-in-law, Lourdes Elpedes, at the Nichols Airbase in Pasay City.
The agreement between the parties was that the child would be returned to his parents at 4:00 P.M. the same day.
Upon arriving at her residence later that morning, appellant discovered that her husband, Maximiano Mariano, and their belongings had disappeared, plunging her into distress.

In her distressed state, appellant went to the residence of her former employers, Mr. and Mrs. Abraham Felipe in Intramuros, Manila.
There, an “Agreement” was executed wherein she surrendered custody of Hazel to the Felipe spouses.
Appellant received P250.00 for the child, as evidenced by a receipt, with documents (Exhibits D and E) presented as part of the record.

After noticing the child’s absence, Lourdes Elpedes, accompanied by her husband Frank Elpedes, began a search along Herran (now Pedro Gil) Street.
On 15 July 1984, Frank encountered appellant in a telephone booth and brought her to the Western Police District Station.
Appellant then led Frank and Patrolman Diosdado Deotoy to the Felipe residence in Intramuros, but the child was not found there.
Information received later directed the group to Cogeo, Antipolo, Rizal, where Hazel was eventually recovered from the Felipe spouses’ residence.

Testimony by Lourdes Elpedes detailed her experience of seeking the child and the circumstances surrounding appellant’s temporary custody.
Patrolman Diosdado Deotoy testified about the recovery operation in Antipolo and recounted that appellant admitted to “selling” the child.
Patrolman Ernesto Callos corroborated that appellant had made voluntary oral admissions regarding the transaction during his investigation, despite her decision to forgo converting them into writing.
Appellant’s own testimony asserted that she had taken Hazel on her husband’s instructions for temporary safekeeping while she searched for him, and that her actions were inadvertently confused by her emotional state.

The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping and failure to return a minor, sentencing her to reclusion perpetua (initially termed “life imprisonment”).
The court ordered appellant to pay moral damages initially set at P2,000.00 to the minor’s parents for the anxiety and mental anguish they sustained.
Appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove a deliberate “sale” of the child and argued that her actions were not criminally intended but were rather the result of personal distress.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently established that appellant deliberately failed to return Hazel Elpedes to his parents.

Did the testimonies and documentary evidence (thumbmarks, monetary receipt, and the “Agreement”) prove beyond reasonable doubt that the minor was “sold”?
Is the alleged “sale” element of the offense sufficiently supported by both direct testimony and circumstantial evidence?

Whether the defense’s contention that the failure to return the child was inadvertent and the result of emotional confusion due to her husband’s abandonment was a valid exculpatory factor.

Can appellant’s claim of temporary custody and misrepresentation of the child’s relationship be accepted in light of the prosecution’s evidence showing deliberate conduct?
Do the instances of hearsay in the testimonies of Lourdes Elpedes and the manner in which evidence was obtained compromise the prosecution’s case?

Whether the imposition of the harsh sentence of reclusion perpetua was appropriate given the mitigating circumstances, including appellant’s cooperation following apprehension and her lack of a criminal background.