People of the Philippines vs. Aida Marquez

A person entrusted with the custody of a minor commits Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code when she deliberately fails to restore the minor to the parent or guardian; the offense is consummated upon that deliberate failure and is not negated by a subsequent adoption agreement.

Carolina Cunanan Merano worked as a beautician at a beauty parlor where she met Aida Marquez, also known as Aida Pulido. Marquez was close to Merano’s employers and was kind to Merano and her co-employees, often giving them food and tips. Merano had a three-month-old daughter, Justine Bernadette C. Merano. Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18, penalizes with reclusion perpetua any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor, deliberately fails to restore the minor to the parents or guardians.

Carolina Cunanan Merano worked as a beautician at a beauty parlor where she met Aida Marquez, also known as Aida Pulido. Merano easily trusted Marquez because Marquez was close to her employers, was nice to her and her co-employees, and always gave them food and tips. On September 6, 1998, after a trip to a beach in Laguna, Marquez borrowed Merano’s then three-month-old daughter, Justine Bernadette C. Merano, to buy her some clothes, milk, and food. Merano agreed because it was not unusual for Marquez to bring Justine some things whenever she came to the parlor. When Marquez failed to return Justine in the afternoon as promised, Merano went to her employers’ house to ask for Marquez’s address, but her employers merely assured her that Justine would be returned soon.

Merano searched for her daughter without success until she received a call from Marquez on November 11, 1998. During that call, Marquez told Merano that she would return Justine the following day and that she had not been able to do so because her own son was sick and confined at the hospital. Marquez also asked Merano for ₱50,000.00 for the expenses she incurred while Justine was with her. When the promised return did not happen, Merano went to Marquez’s house using a sketch she obtained from her employers’ driver, but Marquez was not home. Marquez’s maid told Merano that Justine had been there for only a couple of days. Merano left a note for Marquez stating that she would file a case if Justine was not returned. Merano then sought help from then Mayor Alfredo Lim, who referred her to Inspector Eleazar of San Pedro, Laguna; Inspector Eleazar assigned two police officers to accompany her to Marquez’s house. When Merano did not find Justine there, she returned to Inspector Eleazar, who told her to come back the following day to confront Marquez, whom he would call. Merano came back as instructed, but Marquez did not show up. On November 17, 1998, Merano gave her sworn statement to the police and filed a complaint against Marquez.

On February 11, 1999, Marquez called Merano again and told her to pick up her daughter at Modesto Castillo’s house in Tiaong, Quezon. The following day, Merano, accompanied by Senior Police Officer 2 Diosdado Fernandez and SPO4 Rapal, went to Castillo’s house. Castillo told Merano that Marquez had sold Justine to him and his wife and that they had given Marquez ₱60,000.00 supposedly for Merano, who was asking for money. Castillo also gave Merano a photocopy of a handwritten “Kasunduan” dated May 17, 1998, wherein Merano purportedly gave Justine to the Castillo spouses. The Castillos asked Merano not to take Justine because they had grown to love her, but Merano refused. She was still unable to take Justine home because the police advised her to go through the proper process, as the Castillos might fight for their right to retain custody. Merano later learned from Castillo that, in an effort to legalize Justine’s adoption, the Castillos had turned over custody of Justine to the Reception and Study Center for Children of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

Marquez gave a different account. She testified that she had only formally met Merano on September 6, 1998, although she had known of her for some time because Merano worked as a beautician at the beauty parlor of Marquez’s financier in her real estate business. Marquez alleged that on that day, Merano offered Justine to her for adoption. Marquez told Merano that she was not interested but could refer her to her friend Modesto Castillo. That same night, while Marquez was taking care of her son who was confined at the Makati Medical Center, Merano allegedly proceeded to Marquez’s house in Laguna and left Justine with Marquez’s maid. The following day, while Marquez was at the hospital again, Castillo, accompanied by his mother, went to Marquez’s house to pick up Justine. Because Marquez was out, she instructed her maid not to give Justine to Castillo for fear of possible problems, but she still found Justine gone upon her return home that evening. Marquez allegedly learned of the encounter between the Castillos and Merano when a San Pedro police officer called her to say that Merano, accompanied by two police officers, had gone to Castillo’s house to get Justine. Castillo also called Marquez and told her that Merano had offered Justine to him for adoption.

The defense presented SPO2 Fernandez to prove that he witnessed the execution of a document wherein Merano gave up her right to Justine to the Castillo spouses. Fernandez testified that on February 12, 1999, he and SPO4 Rapal accompanied Merano to Castillo’s house, where Justine was allegedly being kept. When they arrived, they found baby Justine; Merano and Castillo talked and eventually reached an agreement regarding Justine’s adoption. SPO2 Fernandez, Castillo, Merano, and SPO4 Rapal then left Castillo’s house to go to a lawyer near Castillo’s house. After the agreement was put into writing, all of them signed the document entitled “Kasunduan sa Pagtalikod sa Karapatan at Pagpapa-ampon sa Isang Anak,” with Castillo and Merano as parties and SPO2 Fernandez and SPO4 Rapal as witnesses. SPO2 Fernandez claimed that he was surprised that Merano gave up Justine for adoption when they had supposedly gone there to get Justine back.

The RTC found Merano’s testimony credible and corroborated by documentary evidence. It noted that Merano was the mother of the child, searched for her child when Marquez failed to return the baby, filed the complaint when she failed to get her child, and recovered the child from the DSWD’s Reception and Study Center for Children, as evidenced by a Discharge Slip, after Marquez informed her that the child was with Castillo. The RTC reasoned that if Merano had given up or sold her baby, she would not have exhausted all efforts to find her, and the child would not have been in the RSCC but would have been with Castillo under the document allegedly executed by Merano. It found Merano’s testimony straightforward and devoid of substantial inconsistencies. The RTC found Marquez’s defense of denial weak and outlined inconsistencies in Marquez’s testimonies that further destroyed her credibility. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s credibility findings.

• Nature of the Offense: Accused-appellant Marquez argued that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because the elements of serious illegal detention or kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code were absent.
• Voluntary Disclosure: Marquez contended that it was illogical for her to voluntarily divulge Justine’s whereabouts to Merano and recommend police assistance if she were guilty of kidnapping.
• Insufficient Evidence: Marquez averred that the prosecution’s evidence fell short of the quantum of proof required for conviction and failed to establish her guilt with moral certainty.
• Credibility and Corroboration: Marquez insisted that her testimony was straightforward and consistent and was corroborated by SPO2 Fernandez, a duly respected police officer.
• Motive of Complainant: Marquez argued that Merano’s testimony should not be believed because the only reason Merano filed the charge was her failure to get the money she demanded from Marquez.
• Adoption Defense: Marquez maintained that Merano desired and intended to have Justine adopted and that Marquez merely facilitated the adoption, which should exonerate her.

• Nature of the Offense: Whether Marquez was charged and convicted under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code for Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor, rather than under Article 267 for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.
• Elements of Article 270: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the two essential elements of Article 270: that the offender was entrusted with the custody of a minor and that the offender deliberately failed to restore the minor to the parents or guardians.
• Deliberate Failure: Whether Marquez’s failure to return Justine to Merano was deliberate, notwithstanding her claim that she merely facilitated an adoption and that Merano allegedly consented to it.
• Credibility: Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly gave credence to Merano’s testimony and rejected Marquez’s denial and inconsistent statements, including her claim of corroboration by SPO2 Fernandez.
• Damages: Whether the awards of moral and nominal damages are proper and whether exemplary damages should be deleted for lack of basis.

• Nature of the Offense: Yes. The Information charged violation of Article 270, not Article 267; the act imputed was the deliberate failure to restore a minor after entrustment, not illegal detention.
• Elements of Article 270: Yes. Both elements were present: Marquez was entrusted with custody of Justine, and she deliberately failed to restore her to Merano upon demand.
• Deliberate Failure: Yes. The crime was consummated upon Marquez’s deliberate failure to return Justine; the later adoption agreement and alleged consent did not negate liability.
• Credibility: Yes. The trial court’s assessment of Merano’s credibility is entitled to the highest respect; Marquez’s denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive, credible testimony.
• Damages: Yes as to moral and nominal damages; the exemplary damages were correctly deleted for lack of basis. Moral damages are justified as analogous to illegal detention, and nominal damages under Article 2221 vindicate Merano’s violated parental right.

• Nature of the Offense: The Information alleged that Marquez, being entrusted with custody of three-month-old Justine, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously deliberately failed to restore the child to her parent, Carolina Cunanan Merano. The charge was not illegal detention under Article 267 but violation of Article 270. Article 270 imposes reclusion perpetua upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor, deliberately fails to restore the minor to his parents or guardians. Marquez’s argument that the elements of serious illegal detention or kidnapping under Article 267 were absent was therefore misplaced because she was charged and convicted under Article 270.

• Elements of Article 270: Article 270 has two essential elements: (1) the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person; and (2) the offender deliberately fails to restore the minor to his parents or guardians. The first element was satisfied under either version of the parties: whether Marquez borrowed Justine for the day or Merano left Justine at Marquez’s house, Marquez agreed to temporarily take custody of Justine. The duration of custody did not matter. The second element was also satisfied: on September 6, 1998, custody was transferred or entrusted to Marquez; she had physical and actual custody at one point; and she deliberately failed to return Justine when demanded by Merano.

• Deliberate Failure: The term “deliberate” in Article 270 implies more than mere negligence; it must be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring, or intentionally and maliciously wrong. Marquez’s insistence that Merano desired and intended to have Justine adopted did not exonerate her because it had no bearing on her deliberate failure to return Justine. If Marquez had merely facilitated the adoption, there would have been no need for Merano to contact Marquez and vice-versa, since Merano allegedly had direct access to Castillo. The evidence showed Merano desperately searched for Marquez; Marquez frequented the beauty parlor but was nowhere to be found after September 6, 1998; it took more than two months before she communicated with Merano. If Marquez were surprised by the charges, she would have made efforts to clear her name upon learning of the warrant. Even if Merano later agreed to Castillo’s adoption of Justine through the “Kasunduan sa Pagtalikod sa Karapatan at Pagpapa-ampon sa Isang Anak,” this did not affect Marquez’s liability because the crime had been fully consummated upon her deliberate failure to return Justine.

• Credibility: The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to the highest respect, especially where it had the opportunity to observe demeanor, conduct, and attitude. The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the trial court’s findings, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The RTC found Merano’s testimony credible and corroborated by documents: she was the mother, searched for her child when Marquez failed to return the baby, filed the complaint when she failed to recover the child, and recovered the child from the DSWD’s Reception and Study Center for Children as evidenced by a Discharge Slip after Marquez informed her the child was with Castillo. If Merano had given up or sold her baby, she would not have exhausted efforts to find her, and the child would have been with Castillo rather than the RSCC. The RTC found Marquez’s denial weak and noted inconsistencies in her testimonies. Denial is self-serving negative evidence that cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of prosecution witnesses not shown to have ill motive. SPO2 Fernandez’s testimony focused mainly on how the adoption agreement came to be; his corroboration of the adoption defense was irrelevant because the crime was consummated before the February 1999 agreement, and Merano’s 1999 consent had no impact on her 1998 demand to regain custody.

• Damages: In People vs. Bernardo, the Court held that kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 is clearly analogous to illegal and arbitrary detention or arrest, justifying moral damages. The award of nominal damages is allowed under Article 2221 of the New Civil Code, which states that nominal damages are adjudicated to vindicate or recognize a right violated or invaded, not to indemnify loss. It took Merano almost a year to legally recover her baby; Justine was three months old when the events began and nine months old when Merano saw her again; she spent her first birthday at the RSCC. Merano’s right as a parent was violated and invaded, justifying nominal damages. The Court of Appeals deleted exemplary damages for lack of basis, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

• Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270, Revised Penal Code — The provision penalizes with reclusion perpetua any person who, being entrusted with custody of a minor, deliberately fails to restore the minor to parents or guardians. It has two essential elements: (1) offender entrusted with custody of a minor; and (2) offender deliberately fails to restore the minor to parents or guardians. The Court applied both elements and affirmed conviction.
• Deliberate Failure — “Deliberate” in Article 270 implies more than mere negligence; it must be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring, or intentionally and maliciously wrong. The Court found Marquez’s failure to return Justine upon demand deliberate.
• Consummation of Article 270 Offense — The crime is consummated upon the deliberate failure to return the minor; a subsequent adoption agreement or the parent’s later consent does not negate liability. The Court applied this to reject Marquez’s adoption defense.
• Trial Court’s Credibility Findings — The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to the highest respect absent overlooked or misapplied facts of weight; denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive, credible testimony. The Court applied this to uphold Merano’s credibility and reject Marquez’s denial.
• Moral Damages for Article 270 — Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is analogous to illegal and arbitrary detention or arrest, justifying moral damages. The Court affirmed ₱50,000.00 moral damages.
• Nominal Damages under Article 2221, New Civil Code — Nominal damages are adjudicated to vindicate or recognize a violated right, not to indemnify loss. The Court affirmed ₱20,000.00 nominal damages for violation of Merano’s parental right.
• Exemplary Damages — The Court of Appeals deleted exemplary damages for lack of basis, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

• "Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians." — This is the statutory definition applied by the Court in affirming Marquez’s conviction.
• "This crime has two essential elements: 1. The offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person; and 2. The offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians." — This states the canonical elements of Article 270 as applied to Marquez.
• "Indeed, the word deliberate as used in Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code must imply something more than mere negligence - it must be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong." — This defines the mental element of deliberate failure under Article 270.
• "Finally, even if it were true that Merano subsequently agreed to have Castillo adopt Justine, as evidenced by the "Kasunduan sa Pagtalikod sa Karapatan at Pagpapa-ampon sa Isang Anak," this would still not affect Marquez’s liability as the crime of kidnapping and failure to return the minor had been fully consummated upon her deliberate failure to return Justine to Merano." — This is the ratio on why a later adoption agreement does not negate liability.

• People vs. Bernardo, 428 Phil. 769, 776 (2002) — Cited for the elements of Article 270, the meaning of “deliberate,” and the rule that kidnapping and failure to return a minor is analogous to illegal and arbitrary detention or arrest, justifying moral damages.
• People vs. Bondoc, G.R. No. 98400, May 23, 1994, 232 SCRA 478 — Cited for the rationale that trial courts are best situated to assess witness credibility and that factual findings will not be disturbed absent overlooked or misapplied facts.
• People vs. Pastrana, 436 Phil. 127, 137 (2002) — Cited for the time-honored maxim that the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect.
• Madsali vs. People, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 596, 608 — Cited for the rule that denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive and credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses.

• Article 270, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18 — Defines and penalizes Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor with reclusion perpetua. Applied to convict Marquez.
• Article 267, Revised Penal Code — Defines Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention. Cited to distinguish from Article 270; Marquez’s arguments under Article 267 were misplaced because she was charged under Article 270.
• Article 2221, New Civil Code — Provides that nominal damages are adjudicated to vindicate or recognize a right violated or invaded, not to indemnify loss. Applied to affirm ₱20,000.00 nominal damages.
• Republic Act No. 18 — Amended Articles 62, 267, 268, 270, 271, 294, and 299 of the Revised Penal Code; approved on September 25, 1946. Cited as the amendatory law for Article 270.

Renato C. Corona (Chief Justice, Chairperson), Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Mariano C. Del Castillo, and Jose Portugal Perez concurred. No separate concurring opinions are recounted in the text.