Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Baguio City
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- AIDA MARQUEZ, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 181440 Present: CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, DEL
CASTILLO, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: April 13, 2011 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
For review is the August 29, 2007
Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR.-H.C. No. 00467, which affirmed with modification the Regional Trial
Court’s (RTC) January 21, 2004 Decision[2]
in Criminal Case No.
99-106, wherein accused-appellant Aida Marquez (Marquez), also known as Aida
Pulido, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping and
Failure to Return a Minor as defined and penalized under Article 270 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18;[3]
was sentenced to serve the penalty of reclusion
perpetua; and was ordered
to pay the offended party Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral
damages and Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as exemplary damages.
On December 28, 1998, Marquez was charged with Kidnapping under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 18, before the RTC, Branch 140 of Makati City.[4] The Information reads in part as follows:
That on or about the 6th day of September, 1998, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named 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).[5]
Marquez pleaded not guilty to the
crime charged in her arraignment on October 10, 2002.[6]
Trial on the merits followed the termination of the pre-trial
conference.
According
to the complainant, Carolina Cunanan Merano (Merano), she met Marquez at the
beauty parlor where she was working as a beautician. Merano confessed to easily trusting Marquez
because aside from her observation that Marquez was close to her employers,
Marquez was also nice to her and her co-employees, and was always giving them
food and tip.[7]
On September 6, 1998, after a trip to
a beach in Laguna, Marquez allegedly borrowed Merano’s then three-month old
daughter Justine Bernadette C. Merano (Justine) to buy her some clothes, milk
and food. Merano said she 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 them for Marquez’s address.
However, Merano said that her employers just assured her that Justine
will be returned to her soon.[8]
Merano averred that she searched for
her daughter but her efforts were unsuccessful until she received a call from
Marquez on November 11, 1998. During
that call, Marquez allegedly told Merano that she will return Justine to Merano
the following day and that she was not able to do so because her own son was
sick and was confined at the hospital.
Marquez also allegedly asked Merano for Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)
for the expenses that she incurred while
Justine was with her.[9] When the supposed return of Justine did not
happen, Merano claimed that she went to Marquez’s house, using the sketch that
she got from her employers’ driver, but Marquez was not home. Upon talking to Marquez’s maid, Merano
learned that Justine was there for only a couple of days. Merano left a note for Marquez telling her
that she will file a case against Marquez if Justine is not returned to her.[10]
Merano afterwards went to see then
Mayor Alfredo Lim to ask for his help.
Merano said that Mayor Lim referred her to Inspector Eleazar of San
Pedro, Laguna, who assigned two police officers to accompany her to Marquez’s
house. When Merano did not find Justine
in Marquez’s house, she went back to Inspector Eleazar who told her to come
back the following day to confront Marquez whom he will call. Merano came back the next day as instructed
but Marquez did not show up.[11]
On November 17, 1998, Merano gave her
sworn statement to the police and filed a complaint against Marquez. On February 11, 1999, Marquez allegedly
called Merano up again to tell her to pick up her daughter at Modesto
Castillo’s (Castillo) house in Tiaong, Quezon.
The following day, Merano, accompanied by Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2
Diosdado Fernandez and SPO4 Rapal, went to the house of Castillo in
Quezon. Merano claimed that Castillo
told her that Marquez sold Justine to him and his wife and that they gave
Marquez Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00) supposedly for Merano who was
asking for money. Castillo even gave
Merano a photocopy of the handwritten “Kasunduan”
dated May 17, 1998, wherein Merano purportedly gave Justine to the Castillo
spouses.[12] The Castillos asked Merano not to take
Justine as they had grown to love her but Merano refused. However, she was still not able to take
Justine home with her because the police advised her to go through the proper
process as the Castillos might fight for their right to retain custody of
Justine.[13] Merano then learned from Castillo that in an
effort to legalize the adoption of Justine, the Castillos turned over custody
of Justine to the Reception and Study Center for Children of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development.[14]
To defend herself, Marquez proffered
her own version of what had happened during her testimony.[15] Marquez said that she had only formally met
Merano on September 6, 1998 although she had known of her for some time already
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 she could refer her to her friend Modesto Castillo
(Castillo). That very same night, while
Marquez was taking care of her son who was then 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. Since Marquez was out, she instructed her
maid not to give Justine to Castillo for fear of possible problems. However, 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 Marquez to tell her that Merano, accompanied by two
police officers, went to Castillo’s house to get Justine. This was confirmed by Castillo who also
called Marquez and told her that Merano offered Justine to him for adoption.[16]
SPO2 Fernandez, one of the police
officers who accompanied Merano to Castillo’s house in February 1999, was
presented by the defense to prove that he was a witness to the execution of a
document wherein Merano gave up her right to Justine to the Castillo
spouses. Fernandez said that on February
12, 1999, he and SPO4 Rapal accompanied Merano to the house of Castillo where
Justine was allegedly being kept. When
they arrived at Castillo’s house, where they found baby Justine, Merano and
Castillo talked and after sometime, they arrived at an agreement regarding
Justine’s adoption. SPO2 Fernandez
averred that he, Castillo, Merano and SPO4 Rapal left Castillo’s house to go to
a lawyer near Castillo’s house. After
the agreement was put into writing, they all signed the document, entitled “Kasunduan sa Pagtalikod sa Karapatan at
Pagpapa-ampon sa Isang Anak,”[17]
with Castillo and Merano as parties to the agreement, and SPO2 Fernandez and
SPO4 Rapal as witnesses. SPO2 Fernandez
claimed that he was surprised that Merano gave up Justine for adoption when
they supposedly went there to get Justine back.[18]
On January 21, 2004, the RTC found
Marquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused AIDA MARQUEZ a.k.a. AIDA PULIDO, 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 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
For the Civil aspect, accused is ordered to pay private complainant FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP50,000.00) for moral damage and TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP20,000.00) for exemplary damage.
Costs against the accused.[19]
The
RTC recounted in detail the factual antecedents of the case and made a
comprehensive synopsis of the testimonies of all the witnesses presented. In finding for the prosecution, the RTC held
that the testimony of the complainant mother, Merano, was enough to convict the
accused Marquez because it was credible and was corroborated by documentary
evidence.[20]
On
intermediate appellate review, the Court of Appeals was faced with the lone
assignment of error as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR WHEN THE LATTER’S GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[21]
On August 29, 2007, the Court of
Appeals found Marquez’s appeal to be unmeritorious and affirmed the RTC’s
decision with modifications on the damages awarded, to wit:
WHEREFORE,
the instant Appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision, dated January 21 2004,
of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 140, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that
nominal damages of P20,000.00 is hereby awarded in addition to the P50,000.00
moral damages, while the award for exemplary damages is accordingly deleted
for lack of basis.[22]
The Court of Appeals, in affirming Marquez’s conviction, relied on the satisfaction of the elements of the crime as charged. It said that the conflicting versions of the parties’ testimonies did not even matter as the fact remained that Marquez had, at the very least, constructive custody over Justine and she failed to return her when demanded to do so.
The accused Marquez is now before us, still praying for a reversal of her conviction on the same arguments she submitted to the Court of Appeals.[23]
After a painstaking scrutiny of the entire records of this case, this Court finds no reason to reverse the courts below.
Marquez argues that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because the elements constituting the crime of serious illegal detention or kidnapping are not present in this case.[24]
The crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention falls under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, viz:
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
Marquez further contends that it is illogical for her to voluntarily
divulge to Merano the whereabouts of Justine, even recommending the assistance
of police officers, if she were indeed guilty of kidnapping.
Accused is mistaken, if not misled, in her understanding and appreciation
of the crime she was charged with and eventually convicted of.
A reading of
the charge in the information shows that the act imputed to Marquez was not
the illegal detention of a person, but involves her deliberate failure to
restore a minor baby girl to her parent after being entrusted with said baby’s
custody.
Contrary to Marquez’s assertions, therefore, she was charged with violation of Article 270, and not Article 267, of the Revised Penal Code.
The Revised Penal Code considers it a crime when a person who has been entrusted with the custody of a minor later on deliberately fails to return said minor to his parent or guardian. This may be found in Article 270, which reads:
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.[25]
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.[26]
This Court, in elucidating on the elements of Article 270, stated that
while one of the essential elements of this crime is that the offender was
entrusted with the custody of the minor, what is actually being punished is not the kidnapping but the deliberate failure of that person to
restore the minor to his parents or guardians.[27] As the penalty for such an offense is so
severe, the Court further explained what “deliberate” as used in Article 270
means:
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.[28] (Emphasis ours.)
It is clear from the records of the case that Marquez was entrusted with
the custody of Justine. Whether this is
due to Merano’s version of Marquez borrowing Justine for the day, or due to
Marquez’s version that Merano left Justine at her house, it is undeniable that
in both versions, Marquez agreed to the arrangement, i.e., to
temporarily take custody of Justine. It
does not matter, for the first element to be present, how long said custody
lasted as it cannot be denied that Marquez was the one entrusted with the
custody of the minor Justine. Thus, the
first element of the crime is satisfied.
As to the second element, neither party disputes that on September 6,
1998, the custody of Justine was transferred or entrusted to Marquez. Whether this lasted for months or only for a
couple of days, the fact remains that Marquez had, at one point in time,
physical and actual custody of Justine.
Marquez’s deliberate failure to return Justine, a minor at that time,
when demanded to do so by the latter’s mother, shows that the second element is
likewise undoubtedly present in this case.
Marquez’s insistence on Merano’s alleged desire and intention to have
Justine adopted cannot exonerate her because it has no bearing on her
deliberate failure to return Justine to Merano.
If it were true that Marquez merely facilitated Justine’s adoption, then
there was no more need for Merano to contact Marquez and vice-versa, since
Merano, as Marquez claimed, had direct access to Castillo. The evidence shows, however, that Merano
desperately searched for a way to communicate with Marquez. As testified to by both Merano and Marquez,
Marquez frequented the beauty parlor where Merano worked in, and yet,
curiously, Marquez was nowhere to be found after September 6, 1998. It took Marquez more than two months before
communicating with Merano again, after she supposedly facilitated the adoption
of Justine. If Marquez were indeed
surprised to learn about the charges against her, she would have made every
effort to clear her name when she found out that there was a standing warrant
for her arrest. She would have
immediately contacted either Merano or Castillo to confront them on why she was
being implicated in their arrangement.
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.
Marquez avers that the prosecution’s “evidence has fallen short of the
quantum of proof required for conviction” and that it has “failed to establish
[her] guilt with moral certainty.”[29] Marquez argues that her testimony was not
only straightforward and consistent but also corroborated by a duly respected
police officer. She insists that
Merano’s testimony should not be believed as the only reason Merano filed this
charge was because she failed to get the money she demanded from Marquez.[30]
This Court is constrained to once
again reiterate the time-honored maxim that the trial court’s assessment of the
credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect.[31] In People
v. Bondoc,[32] a case
also involving the accused’s failure to return a minor, we explained the
rationale of this maxim:
We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. The issue involved in this appeal is one of credibility, and this Court has invariably ruled that the matter of assigning values to the testimony of witnesses is best performed by the trial courts because they, unlike appellate courts, can weigh the testimony of witnesses in the light of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witnesses at the trial, except when circumstances of weight or influence were ignored or disregarded by them which does not obtain in the present case.
Unless there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight that would have affected the result of the case, this Court will not disturb factual findings of the lower court. Having had the opportunity of observing the demeanor and behavior of witnesses while testifying, the trial court more than this Court is in a better position to gauge their credibility and properly appreciate the relative weight of the often conflicting evidence for both parties. When the issue is one of credibility, the trial court's findings are given great weight on appeal.[33] (Emphases ours.)
The RTC, in finding Merano credible,
stated:
Between the two conflicting allegations, the Court, after taking into account all the testimonies and evidences presented by the prosecution and the defense, finds for the prosecution. The lone testimony of the complainant inspired credibility and was corroborated by the documents, to wit, she is the mother of the child and she searched for her child when accused failed to return her baby, filed this complaint when she failed to get her child and she was able to recover the child from the DSWD at its Reception and Study Center for Children (RSCC) as evidenced by the Discharge Slip after accused informed her that the child was with Modesto Castillo. If indeed the complainant had given up or have sold her baby, she would not have exhausted all efforts possible to find her baby. Further, the child would not have been in RSCC but it would have been with Modesto Castillo as per the document allegedly executed by Complainant. The testimony of the complainant was straightforward and devoid of any substantial inconsistencies.[34]
The RTC found Marquez’s defense of
denial to be weak. It also outlined the
inconsistencies in Marquez’s testimonies which further destroyed her
credibility.
The manner of appreciating the defense of denial was discussed by this Court in this wise:
As to the defense of denial, the same is inherently weak. Denial is a self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be given greater weight than that of the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters. Like alibi, denial is an inherently weak defense, which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against petitioner.[35]
Merano’s credibility has been
established by the trial court, to which the Court of Appeals agreed. This Court finds no reason to depart from
these findings, especially since it was the trial court which had the
opportunity to evaluate and assess the credibility of the witnesses presented
before it. Both courts found Merano’s
testimony to be straightforward and consistent.
Thus, Marquez’s denial and inconsistent statements cannot prevail over
Merano’s positive and credible testimony.
Anent Marquez’s claim that SPO2
Fernandez’s testimony corroborated hers, a perusal of the transcript of SPO2
Fernandez’s testimony will reveal that its focus was mainly on how the
agreement on Justine’s adoption came to be.
The fact that SPO2 Fernandez may have corroborated Marquez’s defense of
adoption by testifying that he witnessed how Merano gave up her child for
adoption to Castillo is irrelevant. As
we have discussed above, the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor
had been fully consummated way before the execution of the agreement in
February 1999, the validity of which is not in issue before us now. Moreover, even if Merano had indeed given up
Justine to Castillo on February 12, 1999, Merano’s consent to have Justine adopted
in 1999 has no impact on her demand
to regain custody of Justine in 1998.
In People v. Bernardo,[36]
we held that the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under
Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code is clearly analogous to illegal and
arbitrary detention or arrest, thereby justifying the award of moral
damages.
The award of nominal damages is also
allowed under Article 2221 of the New Civil Code which states that:
Article 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
It took Merano almost a year to
legally recover her baby. Justine was
only three months old when this whole debacle began. She was already nine months old when Merano
saw her again. She spent her first
birthday at the Reception and Study Center for Children of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development.[37] Evidently, Merano’s right as a parent which
was violated and invaded must be vindicated and recognized, thereby justifying
the award of nominal damages.
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 29, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR. HC
No. 00467 finding Aida
Marquez GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of KIDNAPPING AND
FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code is
hereby AFFIRMED. No Costs.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE
PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 4-18; penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam
with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court) and Sesinado E. Villon, concurring.
[2] CA
rollo, pp. 15-27; penned by Judge Leticia P. Morales.
[3] An
Act to Amend Articles Sixty-Two, Two Hundred and Sixty-Seven, Two Hundred and
Sixty-Eight, Two Hundred and Seventy, Two Hundred and Seventy-One, Two Hundred
and Ninety-Four, and Two Hundred and Ninety-Nine of the Revised Penal Code. Approved on September 25, 1946.
[4] This
case was originally raffled to Branch 62.
Upon the parties’ joint manifestation that the alleged kidnapped victim
was a minor, the court ordered the transfer and reraffle of the case to the
appropriate Family Court. Records, p. 26.
[5] Records,
p. 1; the name should read Carolina Merano y
Cunanan.
[6] Id.
at 64.
[7] TSN,
November 28, 2002, pp. 7-10.
[8] Id.
at 10-12.
[9] Id.
at 22.
[10]
Id.
at 12-16.
[11] Id.
at 17-19.
[12] Records,
p. 121.
[13] TSN,
November 28, 2002, pp. 19-32.
[14] TSN,
November 28, 2002, p. 35.
[15] TSN,
February 20, 2003 and March 7, 2003.
[16] TSN,
February 20, 2003, pp. 3-14.
[17] Records,
p. 209.
[18] TSN,
August 26, 2003, pp. 3-4, 8-15, 32-35.
[19] CA rollo, p. 27.
[20] Id.
at 26.
[21] Id.
at 57.
[22] Rollo, p. 17.
[23] Id.
at 27.
[24] CA rollo, pp. 63-64.
[25] Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18.
[26] People v. Bernardo, 428 Phil. 769, 776
(2002).
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] CA rollo, p. 67.
[30] TSN,
February 20, 2003, pp. 13-14.
[31] People v. Pastrana, 436 Phil. 127, 137
(2002).
[32] G.R.
No. 98400, May 23, 1994, 232 SCRA 478.
[33] Id.
at 484-485.
[34] CA rollo, p. 26.
[35] Madsali v.
People, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 596, 608.
[36] Supra
note 26 at 777.
[37] TSN,
November 28, 2002, p. 33.