G.R. No. 181440 ; April 13, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AIDA MARQUEZ, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Aida Marquez was charged with Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Information alleged that on or about September 6, 1998, in Makati City, Marquez, having been entrusted with the custody of a three-month-old baby girl, Justine Bernadette C. Merano, willfully and feloniously failed to restore the child to her mother, Carolina Cunanan Merano.
The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from the testimony of the complainant mother, Carolina Merano, established that she knew Marquez from the beauty parlor where she worked. On September 6, 1998, Marquez borrowed Justine to buy her clothes and milk, promising to return her in the afternoon. Marquez failed to return. Merano’s subsequent searches and pleas to her employers and Marquez were unsuccessful. On November 11, 1998, Marquez called Merano, promised to return Justine the next day, and demanded ₱50,000 for expenses incurred. The child was not returned. With police assistance, Merano went to Marquez’s house but did not find Justine. On February 11, 1999, Marquez called again and directed Merano to pick up Justine from the house of Modesto Castillo in Tiaong, Quezon. Merano, accompanied by police officers, went there. Castillo claimed Marquez sold Justine to him and his wife for ₱60,000 and showed a “Kasunduan” dated May 17, 1998, purportedly showing Merano gave up Justine for adoption. The Castillos had since turned over Justine’s custody to the DSWD.
The defense presented Marquez’s version. She testified she only formally met Merano on September 6, 1998, when Merano offered Justine for adoption. Marquez claimed she declined but referred Merano to Modesto Castillo. She alleged that Merano herself left Justine at Marquez’s house that night, and the Castillos picked up the child the next day without Marquez’s knowledge. The defense also presented SPO2 Fernandez, who testified that on February 12, 1999, he witnessed Merano and Castillo execute a “Kasunduan sa Pagtalikod sa Karapatan at Pagpapa-ampon sa Isang Anak,” wherein Merano gave up her parental rights.
The Regional Trial Court found Marquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua, ordering her to pay ₱50,000 as moral damages and ₱20,000 as exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages, awarding ₱50,000 moral damages and ₱20,000 nominal damages, and deleting the exemplary damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor when her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION.
The Court held that all elements of the crime under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person; (2) the offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians. The Court found the testimony of the complainant, Carolina Merano, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. Her account that she entrusted her child to Marquez for a temporary, specific purpose (to buy clothes and milk) was corroborated by her immediate and persistent efforts to recover Justine upon Marquez’s failure to return her.
The Court rejected Marquez’s defense. Her claim that Merano voluntarily offered the child for adoption was inconsistent with Merano’s immediate and distressed actions to recover her infant daughter. The alleged “Kasunduan” presented by the defense, dated May 17, 1998 (months before the entrustment on September 6, 1998), was deemed highly suspect and could not prevail over Merano’s positive testimony. The Court also noted that Marquez’s own actions—demanding money for the child’s return and directing the mother to a third party’s house—were indicative of guilt.
Regarding penalties and damages, the Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It sustained the award of ₱50,000 as moral damages. However, the Court found the award of nominal damages by the Court of Appeals to be without legal basis, as nominal damages are awarded when a legal right is violated but no actual pecuniary loss is proved, which was not the situation here. The Court also deleted the award of exemplary damages for lack of basis, as the prosecution did not establish any aggravating circumstance.