G.R. No. L-49430 March 30, 1982
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BELINDA LORA Y VEQUIZO alias LORENA SUMILEW, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Belinda Lora, was employed as a housemaid by the Yap family. On May 28, 1975, she kidnapped the family’s three-year-old son, Oliver Yap, from their residence. She left a ransom note demanding money for her mother’s hospitalization. That evening, she called the family, instructing Ricardo Yap to deliver P3,000.00 to a specified location, promising Oliver’s release. After the money was collected, the child was not returned. The following day, the accused contacted Myrna Yap, demanding another P3,000.00 and claiming Oliver was at a bus terminal. Myrna Yap located and apprehended the accused, who then gave various false locations for the child.
The search led back to the Yap residence, where Oliver’s body was discovered on May 30, 1975, in the third-floor bodega. He was found inside a cigarette box, his mouth gagged with a stocking, having died from asphyxia due to suffocation. The accused was charged with Serious Illegal Detention with Murder. Upon arraignment, with the assistance of her counsel, she pleaded guilty. The trial court proceeded to receive evidence from the prosecution, which established the aforementioned facts, and from the defense, which was presented solely to prove mitigating circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty upon the accused who pleaded guilty to the complex crime of Serious Illegal Detention with Murder.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the legal qualification. The crime committed was not the complex crime under Article 267 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as charged. Instead, the act constituted the special complex crime of Kidnapping a Minor under Article 270, where the victim is killed during the detention. The killing was correctly classified as Murder, qualified by treachery, as the method of gagging and confining a three-year-old child in a box ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the accused.
The plea of guilty is a mitigating circumstance. However, it is outweighed by the presence of several aggravating circumstances: (1) disregard of respect due to the tender age of the victim; (2) cruelty, by deliberately augmenting the victim’s suffering through the manner of confinement; and (3) abuse of confidence, as the accused was a trusted housemaid. With three aggravating circumstances and only one mitigating circumstance, the penalty prescribed by Article 270 for kidnapping with murder is death. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this penalty, rejecting the defense’s plea for leniency based on the accused’s youth and alleged lack of intent to kill, as the fatal consequences of her actions were manifestly deliberate. The death penalty was thus imposed.