G.R. No. 181440 - People vs. Marquez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 181440)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner in the criminal prosecution: People of the Philippines.
Respondent / Accused: Aida Marquez, convicted below for Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 18.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Incident/custody transfer alleged: September 6, 1998.
Information filed / charge date: December 28, 1998.
Complainant’s sworn statement: November 17, 1998.
Telephone communications from Marquez to Merano: November 11, 1998 and February 11, 1999.
Merano and police visit to Castillo’s house and execution of “kasunduan”: February 12, 1999.
Arraignment: October 10, 2002.
RTC decision (conviction and sentence): January 21, 2004.
Court of Appeals decision (affirmed with modification): August 29, 2007.
Supreme Court decision on review: April 13, 2011. (Because the final decision date is later than 1990, the 1987 Constitution is the operative constitutional framework for this decision.)

Applicable Law

Primary penal provision applied: Article 270, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18 (Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor). The Court distinguishes Article 270 from Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention) and applies the specific elements and consequences of Article 270. For awards of damages, the Court referenced Article 2221 of the New Civil Code for nominal damages and prior jurisprudence on moral damages in analogous cases.

Information and Charged Offense

The Information charged Marquez with, being entrusted with the custody of the minor Justine, deliberately failing to restore the child to her parent, Carolina Merano. The factual allegation centers on an entrusted custody followed by a refusal or failure to return the minor to the parent on demand, the precise conduct penalized under Article 270.

Prosecution’s Factual Narrative

Merano testified that on September 6, 1998 she allowed Marquez to take the three-month-old Justine to buy clothes, milk and food; Marquez failed to return the child that afternoon. Merano searched and sought Marquez through Marquez’s employers; no prompt return occurred. Merano received a November 11, 1998 telephone call from Marquez promising return the next day but demanding P50,000 for expenses; return did not occur. Merano sought police assistance, filed a sworn statement on November 17, 1998, and in February 1999 was told by Modesto Castillo that Marquez “sold” the child to him and his wife for P60,000 and produced a photocopy of a handwritten “kasunduan” dated May 17, 1998. The Castillos allegedly transferred custody to the RSCC of the DSWD to regularize adoption; Merano later recovered the child from RSCC.

Defense Version and Documentary Allegations

Marquez testified that Merano offered Justine for adoption on September 6, 1998 and left the infant that night at Marquez’s house with the maid; Marquez claims she declined but referred Merano to Modesto Castillo. Marquez asserted that Castillo and his mother later retrieved Justine and that Marquez was unaware of custody thereafter while attending to her hospitalized son. Marquez argued that Merano voluntarily relinquished the child and that an adoption agreement (the “kasunduan”) exists. Defense also presented SPO2 Fernandez’s testimony that he witnessed the signing, on February 12, 1999, of a written agreement titled “Kasunduan sa Pagtalikod sa Karapatan at Pagpapa-ampon sa Isang Anak,” executed by Merano and Castillo with police officers as witnesses.

RTC Findings and Sentence

The Regional Trial Court (Branch 140, Makati) found Marquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor (Article 270) and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. The RTC awarded PHP 50,000.00 as moral damages and PHP 20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and taxed costs against the accused. The RTC’s factual findings emphasized the credibility of Merano’s testimony, corroboration by documentary evidence (including recovery at RSCC and the discharge slip), Merano’s persistent efforts to recover her child, and inconsistencies in Marquez’s account.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On intermediate appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed Marquez’s challenge and affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the damages: it affirmed moral damages of PHP 50,000.00, added nominal damages of PHP 20,000.00, and deleted the exemplary damages award for lack of basis. The CA concluded that the elements of Article 270 were satisfied, and that constructive or actual custody of the minor by Marquez and her subsequent failure to return the child when demanded satisfied the offense even in light of conflicting proof.

Supreme Court Review: Issue Presented

The sole assignment of error presented to the Supreme Court was that Marquez’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reviewed whether the elements of Article 270 were present and whether the lower courts correctly assessed witness credibility and the probative value of the evidence, including the later-executed adoption agreement.

Supreme Court Analysis of Elements (Article 270)

The Court reiterated the two essential elements of Article 270: (1) that the offender was entrusted with the custody of a minor, and (2) that the offender deliberately failed to restore the minor to his parents or guardians. The Court explained that Article 270 penalizes the deliberate failure to return a minor entrusted to one’s custody; the use of “deliberate” requires more than mere negligence and connotes premeditation, headstrong or intentionally wrongful conduct. The Court found the first element satisfied because both parties’ versions conceded that custody of Justine was entrusted to Marquez on September 6, 1998. The second element was found satisfied because Merano demanded return, Marquez failed to return the child, and Marquez’s communications and subsequent conduct showed a deliberate failure to restore the minor.

Treatment of the Adoption Argument and Timing

The Court held that Marquez’s contention that she had merely facilitated an adoption did not negate criminal liability for failure to return because any later agreement or adoption does not negate the completed crime if the deliberate failure to return occurred earlier. The Court emphasized the chronological fact that the purported adoption agreement and any transfer of custody via Castillo or the RSCC occurred months after the initial failure to return, so such later consent or documentation could not erase the prior consummated offense under Article 270.

Credibility and Standard of Review

The Supreme Court accorded great respect to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, citing well-established doctrine that trial courts are best positioned to observe demeanor, conduct, and attitude of witnesses. The RTC found Merano’s testimony straightforward, consistent, corroborated by attendant circumstances (sear

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 181440)

Case Citation and Disposition

Reported at 664 Phil. 124; First Division; G.R. No. 181440; Decision promulgated April 13, 2011; penned by Justice Leonardo-De Castro with concurrence by Corona, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ.
The Supreme Court affirmed the August 29, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00467, which itself affirmed with modification the January 21, 2004 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 140, Makati City, in Criminal Case No. 99-106.
Final holding: Aida Marquez found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18; affirmation of conviction by the Supreme Court; no costs.

Parties and Roles

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
Accused-Appellant/Respondent: Aida Marquez, also known as Aida Pulido.
Complainant/Victim’s mother: Carolina (Carolina Cunanan y Merano / Carolina Merano y Cunanan) Merano.
Minor victim: Justine Bernadette C. Merano (referred to as Justine), a three-month old baby at the time of the alleged incident.
Third parties appearing in the factual narrative: Modesto Castillo and his spouse (referred to collectively as “the Castillos”); SPO2 Diosdado Fernandez; SPO4 Rapal; Inspector Eleazar of San Pedro, Laguna; then Mayor Alfredo Lim; Marquez’s maid; Marquez’s employers and their driver; Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Reception and Study Center for Children (RSCC).

Procedural History

December 28, 1998: Information for Kidnapping under Article 270, Revised Penal Code as amended by RA No. 18, filed before the RTC, Branch 140, Makati City (case originally raffled to Branch 62 and transferred/reraffled to Family Court upon parties’ joint manifestation that the alleged kidnapped victim was a minor).
October 10, 2002: Accused Marquez pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
Trial on the merits followed after pre-trial termination; testimony dates include November 28, 2002; February 20, 2003; March 7, 2003; August 26, 2003.
January 21, 2004: RTC Decision (Judge Leticia P. Morales) found Marquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua; ordered payment of P50,000.00 moral damages and P20,000.00 exemplary damages; costs against the accused.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals, CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00467; lone assignment of error: that the trial court gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant as guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
August 29, 2007: Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision but modified damages — awarded P50,000.00 moral damages and P20,000.00 nominal damages; deleted exemplary damages for lack of basis; appeal dismissed.
Appeal to the Supreme Court; Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in full (as modified), reinstating conviction; no costs imposed.

Facts as Found by the Trial Court and Summarized on Appeal

September 6, 1998: After a trip to a beach in Laguna, Marquez allegedly borrowed Merano’s then three-month-old daughter Justine to buy clothes, milk and food; Merano agreed because Marquez had previously brought things for Justine and because Merano trusted Marquez, who was acquainted with Merano’s employers and was “nice” to employees.
Marquez did not return Justine that afternoon as promised. Merano sought Marquez’s address from her employers; employers assured Merano Justine would be returned.
Merano searched for Justine without success; she received a call from Marquez on November 11, 1998, stating Marquez would return Justine the next day but could not because Marquez’s own son was sick and hospitalized; Marquez allegedly asked Merano for P50,000.00 for expenses incurred while Justine was with her.
Merano later attempted to confront Marquez at her residence but Marquez was absent; Marquez’s maid told Merano Justine had been there only a couple of days. Merano left a note threatening to file a case if Justine was not returned.
Merano sought assistance from Mayor Alfredo Lim, who referred her to Inspector Eleazar. Inspector Eleazar assigned two police officers to accompany Merano to Marquez’s house; no Justine was found; Marquez did not appear on subsequent opportunities to be confronted as arranged by Inspector Eleazar.
November 17, 1998: Merano gave her sworn statement to police and filed a complaint against Marquez.
February 11–12, 1999: Marquez allegedly told Merano to pick up Justine at Modesto Castillo’s house in Tiaong, Quezon. Merano, accompanied by SPO2 Fernandez and SPO4 Rapal, went to Castillo’s house; Castillo said Marquez sold Justine to him and his wife and that they gave Marquez P60,000.00 supposedly for Merano, and provided a photocopy of a handwritten “Kasunduan” dated May 17, 1998, in which Merano purportedly gave Justine to the Castillos.
The Castillos allegedly refused to surrender Justine because they had “grown to love her”; Merano was advised by police to pursue proper legal process as the Castillos might assert rights to custody.
The Castillos allegedly turned over custody of Justine to the DSWD RSCC to legalize adoption, after which Merano later recovered Justine from RSCC, evidenced by a Discharge Slip.
Marquez’s version: She met Merano formally on September 6, 1998; Merano offered Justine to Marquez for adoption; Marquez declined but referred Merano to her friend Modesto Castillo. Merano allegedly left Justine with Marquez’s maid that night while Marquez attended to her hospitalized son at Makati Medical Center. Castillo, with his mother, allegedly went to Marquez’s house to pick up Justine while Marquez was away; Marquez instructed her maid not to give Justine to Castillo, but found Justine gone later that evening.
Marquez alleged she learned of Merano’s actions through a San Pedro police officer and by a call from Castillo; she maintained she facilitated or referred the adoption to Castillo rather than unlawfully withholding Justine.
SPO2 Fernandez (defense witness) testified he accompanied Merano to Castillo’s house on February 12, 1999, found Justine there, and witnessed the execution of a written “Kasunduan sa Pagtalikod sa Karapatan at Pagpapa-ampon sa Isang Anak” signed by Merano and Castillo, with Fernandez and SPO4 Rapal as witnesses. Fernandez stated he was surprised Merano gave up her child for adoption when they supposedly went to retrieve Justine.

Charge and Plea / Exact Language in the Information

Information (in part): That on or about the 6th day of September, 1998, in Makati City, the accused, being entrusted with the custody of a minor, JUSTINE BERNADETTE C. MERANO, a three (3) month old baby girl, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliberately fail to restore the latter to her parent, CAROLINA CUNANAN y MERANO (sic).
Accused Marquez pleaded not guilty at arraignment on October 10, 2002.

Statutory Provision Charged and Distinction from Other Offense

Charged offense: Violation of Article 270, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18 — “Kidnapping and failure to return a minor.”
Article 270 text (as stated in the source): “The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon an