G.R. No. 67610 July 31, 1989
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Angelina Mendoza y Ramos, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Angelina Mendoza, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila for Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution established that on September 28, 1982, Mendoza, using an alias, befriended spouses Ernesto and Eugenia Policarpio and their one-year-old son, Edward, at Luneta Park. After gaining their trust, she lured the child away from his mother and carried him off. She then brought the child to Pasay City and attempted to sell him to a barangay councilwoman, falsely claiming the child’s mother was ill. The child was eventually recovered from the councilwoman twenty days later after Mendoza, upon being questioned at a police station, revealed his location.
The defense presented a contradictory version, claiming the Policarpio family approached her, shared her food, and that she gave them money after they claimed to have been robbed. She denied kidnapping the child. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible and convicted Mendoza based on the facts alleged in the information, which detailed her acts of taking the child with intent to sell and deliberately failing to return him.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code based on the facts proven.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the legal classification of the crime. The Court held that while the information was titled under Article 270 (Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor), which applies specifically to persons entrusted with custody, the factual allegations in the body of the information described acts constituting Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267. The information clearly alleged that Mendoza, a private individual without lawful authority, willfully kidnapped the minor for the purpose of selling him and separating him from his parents, and deliberately failed to return him.
The legal logic is grounded in the principle that it is the factual recitals in the information, not the technical title or the cited penal provision, that determines the nature of the offense charged. Since the facts alleged and conclusively proven at trial—the kidnapping of a minor under seven years old by a private individual without custody—constitute the essential elements of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, a conviction for that crime is proper. There is no fatal variance between the crime charged and the crime proven; the accused was fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her through the detailed facts. Therefore, the Court found Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 and upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua.