Title
People vs. Gutierrez y Franco
Case
G.R. No. 81020
Decision Date
May 28, 1991
A woman, abandoned by her husband, took her nephew under false pretenses, surrendered him to another family, and admitted to "selling" the child in a state of distress. Convicted of kidnapping, she faced reclusion perpetua, with the court recommending clemency due to her circumstances.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138402)

Applicable Law

The charge against the appellant falls under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes kidnapping and failure to return a minor. The law defines the offense based on two critical elements: (1) the offender having been entrusted with the custody of a minor, and (2) the offender deliberately failing to return the minor to their parents or guardians.

Summary of Facts

The events began when Lilia Gutierrez y Franco visited her sister-in-law, Lourdes Elpedes, and requested to take care of the latter's son, Hazel, for the day. The two women agreed that Hazel would be returned by 4:00 PM. However, upon returning home, Gutierrez discovered that her husband had abandoned her, leading to her subsequent decision to leave the child temporarily with her former employers, the Felipe spouses, while she attempted to locate her husband. She later admitted to selling the child for P250.00.

After the child’s parents reported him missing, they sought the assistance of the police. The search led them to the Felipe residence, but the couple denied any knowledge of the child's whereabouts. Eventually, the child was recovered from the Felipe spouses in Antipolo, Rizal, after police investigations confirmed his identity.

Trial Court Proceedings

Upon trial, the court found Gutierrez guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, asserting that she had deliberately failed to restore Hazel to his parents. The decision indicated that her actions, including leading them to the Felipe residence, demonstrated awareness of the child's whereabouts and intent in her actions.

Defense's Arguments

Lilia Gutierrez appealed on the grounds that the prosecution had not sufficiently proven her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, arguing that the testimonies were hearsay as they did not include the Felipe spouses’ direct accounts of the alleged transaction. Additionally, she claimed that her failure to return the child was inadvertent and framed within the context of her emotional turmoil following her husband’s abandonment.

Court's Evaluation of Evidence

The Court underscored that the two essential elements of the crime were satisfactorily established. Notably, the first element of having been entrusted with the minor's custody was not disputed, as Gutierrez admitted to this aspect. Regarding the second element, the court found her actions—specifically her decision to leave Hazel with the Felipe spouses for an indefinite period—indicative of intent to fail in her duty to return the child. Furthermore, the Court elucidated that the precise motive for leaving the child was not necessary for es

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.