G.R. No. 67610 - People vs. Mendoza y Ramos

On September 28, 1982, in Manila, the Policarpio family—spouses Ernesto and Eugenia, along with their children Ferdinand and Edward (aged one year and three months)—were at Luneta Park shortly after arriving from Nueva Ecija.
Angelina Mendoza y Ramos, also known as “Rosalinda Quintos,” approached the family. She introduced herself and engaged them in conversation, even offering food to the minor, Edward.

During the interaction, while the family was distracted, particularly with Mr. Policarpio leaving the group momentarily and Mrs. Policarpio inattentive, the accused began playing with the child and offering him food.
Seizing the opportunity, the accused lured Edward away from his mother and carried him off without the parents’ knowledge or consent.
The accused’s actions were later revealed to have been part of a plan to separate the child from his parents and to sell him, allegedly for personal gain.

Upon noticing Edward’s absence, the Policarpios immediately reported the incident to the Luneta Police Station.
Police records indicated that the accused had prior arrests for vagrancy and her occupation suggested a disreputable lifestyle.
The accused was seen taking the child from Luneta to Tramo Street, Pasay City, where she attempted to offer him for sale for P250.00 in front of residents, including a barangay councilwoman, Mrs. Navarette.
Mrs. Navarette, disturbed by the proposition, became involved in efforts to have the child returned, eventually prompting the police to recover Edward twenty days later.

The accused contended that the child was voluntarily taken into her care by the parents during a situation where they were vulnerable after being robbed.
She claimed that after having shared food with the family, she was asked to watch the child because he appeared sickly and it was drizzling.
According to her, she temporarily left the child at a friend’s place in Tramo and later, due to her own hospitalization at San Lazaro Hospital, she was unable to return him immediately.
The defense alleged that any charge should have been for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267, as the essential elements pointed in that direction rather than Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270.

The prosecution maintained that the accused’s action of luring and taking the minor was done without the authorized consent of the parents, clearly establishing the crime of kidnapping.
Witness testimonies, including that of Mrs. Policarpio and Mr. Policarpio, along with the identification of the accused from photographic evidence, corroborated the prosecution’s account.
The accused’s own sworn statement (Exhibit “D”) further confirmed her involvement in taking Edward away from his parents.
The factual findings pointed to a deliberate and unlawful removal of a minor with the intent to sell, underscoring a heinous criminal act that affected not only the immediate family but society as a whole.

Whether the trial court was correct in convicting the accused-appellant for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code despite the Information’s caption indicating Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270.
Whether the elements of the crime as established by the factual findings (unlawful taking of the minor without parental consent for the purpose of selling him) sufficiently demonstrate the essence of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.
Whether there exists any variance between the crime charged and the crime proven, particularly in light of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution was violated in the present proceedings.