People v.

Marquez
Kidnapping

FACTS:
Prosecution:
Carolina Merano (Merano) met Marquez at the beauty parlor where she
was working.
After a trip to a beach in Laguna, Marquez allegedly borrowed Merano's
then three-month old daughter Justine (Justine) to buy her some
clothes, milk and food.
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.
She searched for her daughter until she received a call from Marquez
on November 11, 1998.
Marquez told Merano that she will return Justine the next 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.
Merano went to Marquez's house 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.
November 17, 1998: Merano gave her sworn statement to the police
and filed a complaint against Marquez.
February 11, 1999: Marquez 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 the police, went to the
house of Castillo. Merano claimed that Castillo told her that Marquez
sold Justine to him and his wife and that they gave Marquez
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.

Defense:
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).
 While Marquez was taking care of her son who was then confined at
the Makati Medical Center, Merano proceeded to Marquez's house in
Laguna and left Justine with Marquez's maid.
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.

RTC: Guilty of Kidnapping and Failure to return a minor as

defined and penalized under Article 270
o Sentenced to reclusion perpetua and pay P70,000 as damages
CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC

ISSUE: WON the decision of the CA is correct

Contention of Marquez: Her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable

doubt because the elements constituting the crime of serious illegal
detention or kidnapping (Article 267) are not present in the case.

HELD: Yes
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.
o Contrary to Marquez's assertions, therefore, she was charged
with violation of Article 2701, and not Article 2672, of the Revised
Penal Code.

1 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.
2 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: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.
 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.
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.
o First element: it is clear that Marquez was entrusted with the
custody of Justine when Marquez agreed to the arrangement.
o Second element: 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.
On the issue of adoption: 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.
o 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.
o Even if it were true that Merano subsequently agreed to have
Castillo adopt Justine, 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.