People v. Marquez

People v. Marquez Kidnapping FACTS: Prosecution: Carolina Merano (Merano) met Marquez at the beauty parlor where she was working. After After a trip to a beach in aguna! Marquez allegedly borrowed borrowed Merano"s then three#month old daughter $ustine ($ustine) to buy her some clothes! milk and food. %hen Marquez failed to return return $ustine in the afternoon as promised! Merano went to her employers" house to ask them for Marquez"s address. &owe'er! Merano said that her employers ust assured her that $ustine will be returned to her soon. he searched for her daughter until she recei'ed recei'ed a call from Marquez on *o'ember ++! +,,-. Marquez told Merano that she will return $ustine the net day and that she was not able to do so because her own son was sick and was con/ned at the hospital. Marquez also allegedly asked Merano for 0ifty 1housand 2esos (234!444.44) (234!444.44) for the epenses that she incurred while $ustine was with her. Merano went to Marquez"s house but Marquez was not home. 5pon talking to Marquez"s maid! Merano learned that $ustine was there for only a couple of days. Merano left a note for Marquez telling her that she will /le a case against Marquez if $ustine is not returned to her. *o'ember +6! +,,-7 Merano ga'e her sworn statement to the police and /led a complaint against Marquez. 0ebruary 0ebruary ++! +,,,7 Marquez called Merano up again to tell her to pick up her daughter at Modesto Castillo"s (Castillo) house in 1iaong! 8uezon.  1he following day! Merano! accompanied accompanied by the police! went to the house of Castillo. Merano claimed that Castillo told her that Marquez sold $ustine to him and his wife and that they ga'e Marquez 294!444.44 supposedly for Merano who was asking for fo r money. money. Castillo e'en ga'e Merano a photocopy of the handwritten :Kasunduan: dated May +6! +,,-! wherein Merano purportedly ga'e $ustine to the Castillo spouses. •

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

Defense: Merano o;ered $ustine to her for adoption. Marquez told Merano that she was not interested but she could refer her to her friend Modesto Castillo (Castillo). • •

•

•

•

•

•

%hile Marquez was taking care of her son who was then con/ned at the Makati Medical Center! Merano proceeded to Marquez"s house in aguna and left $ustine with Marquez"s maid. Castillo! accompanied by his mother! went to Marquez"s house to pick up $ustine. ince Marquez was out! she instructed her maid not to gi'e $ustine to Castillo for fear of possible problems. &owe'er! she still found $ustine gone upon her return home that e'ening.

RTC: rmed the decision of the ?1C

!SS"#: $%& t'e decision of t'e CA is correct Contention of Marquez: &er guilt was not pro'en beyond reasonable doubt because the elements constituting the crime of serious illegal detention or kidnapping (Article =96) are not present in the case. (#)D: *es A reading of the charge in the information shows that t'e act iputed to Marquez +as not t'e illegal detention of a person, -ut involves 'er deli-erate failure to restore a inor -a- girl to 'er parent after -eing entrusted +it' said -a-/s custod. o Contrary to Marquez"s assertions! therefore! she was charged with 'iolation of Article =64 +! and not Article =96=! of the ?e'ised 2enal Code. •

+ Art. 012. Kidnapping and failure to return a inor.  ## 1he 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. = Art. 031. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.  ## Any pri'ate indi'idual who shall kidnap or detain another! or in any other manner depri'e him of his liberty! shall su;er the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death7@f the kidnapping or detention shall ha'e lasted more than three days. =. @f it shall ha'e been committed simulating public authority. . @f any serious physical inuries shall ha'e been inBicted upon the person kidnapped or detained! or if threats to kill him shall ha'e been made. . @f the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor! ecept when the accused is any of the parents! female or a public o>cer.

 1his crime has two essential elements: (+) 1he o;ender is entrusted with the custody of a minor personD and (=)  1he o;ender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians. %hile one of the essential elements of this crime is that the o;ender was entrusted with the custody of the minor! +'at is actuall -eing punis'ed is not the kidnapping -ut t'e deli-erate failure of t'at person to restore t'e inor to 'is parents or guardians. First eleent: it is clear that Marquez was entrusted with the o custody of $ustine when Marquez agreed to the arrangement. Second eleent: Marquez"s deliberate failure to return $ustine! o 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. %n t'e issue of adoption: Merano"s alleged desire and intention to ha'e $ustine adopted cannot eonerate her because it has no bearing on her deliberate failure to return $ustine to Merano. @t took Marquez more than two months before communicating o with Merano again! after she supposedly facilitated the adoption of $ustine. @f Marquez were indeed surprised to learn about the charges against her! she would ha'e made e'ery e;ort to clear her name when she found out that there was a standing warrant for her arrest. E'en if it were true that Merano subsequently agreed to ha'e o Castillo adopt $ustine! this would still not a;ect Marquez"s liability as the crime of kidnapping and failure to return the minor had been fully consummated upon her deliberate failure to return  $ustine to Merano. 

•

•

