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

FACTS

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, at Luneta Park, Mendoza befriended spouses Ernesto and Eugenia Policarpio and their one-year-old son, Edward. After gaining their trust, she lured the child away with food and carried him off without parental consent. Mendoza then attempted to sell the child in Pasay City for P250, claiming he was the son of a gravely ill friend. The child was eventually recovered from a barangay 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 stated they had been robbed. Mendoza testified she gave them money and that the child was voluntarily left with her by the parents. She denied kidnapping or attempting to sell the child. On appeal, Mendoza argued that the crime proven did not match the crime charged, as the information alleged Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270, which requires entrustment of custody, a condition absent in this case.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant can be validly convicted of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code despite being charged under Article 270 for Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the legal classification of the offense. The Court held that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not by the technical name given in the information’s title or the cited penal provision, but by the actual facts recited in its body. The information in this case meticulously detailed acts constituting kidnapping: the willful and unlawful taking of a minor by luring him away from his parents without their consent, with the intent to sell him. These factual allegations clearly constitute the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention defined under Article 267, as they involve the deprivation of the victim’s liberty.
The Court ruled there was no fatal variance between the crime charged and the crime proven. The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation was not violated because the information sufficiently alleged all the essential elements of the crime actually proven. Since the facts alleged constitute a graver offense than that cited, the accused can be convicted of the graver crime. Consequently, the Court found Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.