View full case

PEOPLE v. AIDA MARQUEZ

FACTS:

On September 6, 1998, Marquez borrowed Merano's three-month-old daughter, Justine. Marquez failed to return Justine as promised, causing Merano to search for her daughter. Several unsuccessful attempts were made to locate Justine, including the assistance of Mayor Lim and Inspector Eleazar. Merano eventually filed a complaint against Marquez and gave a sworn statement to the police. On February 11, 1999, Marquez called Merano and told her to pick up her daughter at Castillo's house. However, Castillo claimed that Marquez sold Justine to him and his wife. They refused to allow Merano to take her daughter and turned over custody to the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Marquez claimed that Merano offered Justine for adoption and that she referred her to Castillo. Castillo then picked up Justine from Marquez's house.

The case involves Aida Marquez, who was accused of kidnapping and failure to return a minor. Marquez allegedly brought Justine Merano, a newborn baby, to a hotel in Parañaque City and left the baby in the care of a woman named Castillo. However, Marquez was not present when Castillo tried to pick up Justine the next day. When Marquez returned home, she discovered that Justine was missing. Marquez later learned that Merano, accompanied by police officers, went to Castillo's house and offered Justine for adoption. Defense witness SPO2 Fernandez testified that Merano executed a document giving up her right to Justine to the Castillo spouses. The trial court found Marquez guilty and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction. The Supreme Court finds no reason to reverse the decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Marquez's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of serious illegal detention or kidnapping.

  2. Whether Marquez was properly charged with violation of Article 270 (kidnapping and failure to return a minor) instead of Article 267 (kidnapping and serious illegal detention).

  3. Whether or not the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  4. Whether or not the trial court's assessment of witness credibility should be respected.

  5. Whether Merano's consent to have Justine adopted in 1999 impacts her demand to regain custody of Justine in 1998.

RULING:

  1. Marquez's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of serious illegal detention or kidnapping. The Court of Appeals affirmed Marquez's conviction and found that the elements of the crime were satisfied, specifically that Marquez had constructive custody over the minor Justine and failed to return her when demanded to do so.

  2. Marquez was properly charged with violation of Article 270 (kidnapping and failure to return a minor) instead of Article 267 (kidnapping and serious illegal detention). The information stated that Marquez's act involved the deliberate failure to restore a minor to her parent after being entrusted with her custody, which falls under Article 270. The Court clarified that what is being punished is not the kidnapping itself, but the deliberate failure to return the minor to the parent or guardian. The two essential elements of Article 270 were present in this case, as Marquez was entrusted with the custody of Justine and deliberately failed to return her when demanded.

  3. The Court found that the trial court correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and concluded that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court found the testimony of the complainant to be credible and corroborated by documents. The court also found the accused's defense of denial to be weak and inconsistent.

  4. The Court reiterated the time-honored maxim that the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is entitled to the highest respect. Unless there is a showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight that would have affected the result of the case, the appellate court will not disturb the trial court's factual findings. The trial court, having observed the demeanor and behavior of witnesses while testifying, is in a better position to gauge their credibility. The trial court's findings are given great weight on appeal, especially when the issue is one of credibility.

  5. The Court held that even if Merano had indeed given up Justine to Castillo on February 12, 1999, Merano's consent to have Justine adopted in 1999 has no impact on her demand to regain custody of Justine in 1998.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The elements of the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor, as stated in Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code, are: (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.

  • The word "deliberate" in Article 270 implies something more than mere negligence; it must be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring, or intentionally and maliciously wrong.

  • The penalty for the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor is reclusion perpetua.

  • The trial court's assessment of witness credibility is entitled to the highest respect.

  • Denial is a weak defense and cannot prevail over positive and credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses.

  • Appellate courts will not disturb factual findings of the trial court unless there is a showing of an overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied fact or circumstance of weight.

  • The crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code is analogous to illegal and arbitrary detention or arrest, justifying the award of moral damages. (People v. Bernardo)

  • Nominal damages are allowed to vindicate or recognize a plaintiff's violated or invaded rights, not for indemnification of any loss suffered. (Article 2221, New Civil Code)