4/13/2017 G.R.No.

181440

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
BaguioCity


FIRSTDIVISION


PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES, G.R.No.181440
PlaintiffAppellee,
Present:

CORONA,C.J.,
Chairperson,
VELASCO,JR.,
versus LEONARDODECASTRO,
DELCASTILLO,and
PEREZ,JJ.


Promulgated:
AIDAMARQUEZ,
AccusedAppellant. April13,2011
xx


DECISION


LEONARDODECASTRO,J.:


[1]
ForreviewistheAugust29,2007Decision oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CR.H.C.No.
00467, which affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) January 21, 2004
[2]
Decision in Criminal Case No. 99106, wherein accusedappellant Aida Marquez (Marquez),
alsoknownasAidaPulido,wasfoundguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofKidnapping
and Failure to Return a Minor as defined and penalized under Article 270 of the Revised Penal
[3]
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18 was sentenced to serve the penalty of reclusion
perpetuaandwasorderedtopaytheoffendedpartyFiftyThousandPesos(P50,000.00)asmoral
damagesandTwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00)asexemplarydamages.

On December 28, 1998, Marquez was charged with Kidnapping under Article 270 of the
RevisedPenalCodeasamendedbyRepublicActNo.18,beforetheRTC,Branch140ofMakati

[4]
City. TheInformationreadsinpartasfollows:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/181440.htm 1/11
4/13/2017 G.R.No.181440

That on or about the 6th day of September, 1998, in the City of Makati, Philippines and
withinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,beingentrustedwiththe
custodyofaminor,JUSTINEBERNADETTEC.MERANO,athree(3)montholdbabygirl,did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliberately fail to restore the latter to her
[5]
parent,CAROLINACUNANANyMERANO(sic).


[6]
MarquezpleadednotguiltytothecrimechargedinherarraignmentonOctober10,2002.
Trialonthemeritsfollowedtheterminationofthepretrialconference.

According to the complainant, Carolina Cunanan Merano (Merano), she met Marquez at the
beautyparlorwhereshewasworkingasabeautician.MeranoconfessedtoeasilytrustingMarquez
becauseasidefromherobservationthatMarquezwasclosetoheremployers,Marquezwasalso
[7]
nicetoherandhercoemployees,andwasalwaysgivingthemfoodandtip.

On September 6, 1998, after a trip to a beach in Laguna, Marquez allegedly borrowed
MeranosthenthreemontholddaughterJustineBernadetteC.Merano(Justine)tobuyhersome
clothes,milkandfood.MeranosaidsheagreedbecauseitwasnotunusualforMarqueztobring
Justinesomethingswhenevershecametotheparlor.WhenMarquezfailedtoreturnJustineinthe
afternoon as promised, Merano went to her employers house to ask them for Marquezs address.
However,MeranosaidthatheremployersjustassuredherthatJustinewillbereturnedtohersoon.
[8]

Merano averred that she searched for her daughter but her efforts were unsuccessful until
shereceivedacallfromMarquezonNovember11,1998.Duringthatcall,Marquezallegedlytold
MeranothatshewillreturnJustinetoMeranothefollowingdayandthatshewasnotabletodoso
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
[9]
was with her. When the supposed return of Justine did not happen, Merano claimed that she
wenttoMarquezshouse,usingthesketchthatshegotfromheremployersdriver,butMarquezwas
nothome.UpontalkingtoMarquezsmaid,MeranolearnedthatJustinewasthereforonlyacouple
of days. Merano left a note for Marquez telling her that she will file a case against Marquez if
[10]
Justineisnotreturnedtoher.

MeranoafterwardswenttoseethenMayorAlfredoLimtoaskforhishelp.Meranosaidthat
Mayor Lim referred her to Inspector Eleazar of San Pedro, Laguna, who assigned two police

officers to accompany her to Marquezs house. When Merano did not find Justine in Marquezs
house,shewentbacktoInspectorEleazarwhotoldhertocomebackthefollowingdaytoconfront
Marquez whom he will call. Merano came back the next day as instructed but Marquez did not
[11]
showup.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/181440.htm 2/11
4/13/2017 G.R.No.181440
showup.

On November 17, 1998, Merano gave her sworn statement to the police and filed a
complaintagainstMarquez.OnFebruary11,1999,MarquezallegedlycalledMeranoupagainto
tell her to pick up her daughter at Modesto Castillos (Castillo) house in Tiaong, Quezon. The
followingday,Merano,accompaniedbySeniorPoliceOfficer(SPO)2DiosdadoFernandezand
SPO4Rapal,wenttothehouseofCastilloinQuezon.MeranoclaimedthatCastillotoldherthat
Marquez sold Justine to him and his wife and that they gave Marquez Sixty Thousand Pesos
(P60,000.00) supposedly for Merano who was asking for money. Castillo even gave Merano a
photocopyofthehandwrittenKasunduandatedMay17,1998,whereinMeranopurportedlygave
[12]
Justine to the Castillo spouses. The Castillos asked Merano not to take Justine as they had
growntoloveherbutMeranorefused.However,shewasstillnotabletotakeJustinehomewith
herbecausethepoliceadvisedhertogothroughtheproperprocessastheCastillosmightfightfor
[13]
theirrighttoretaincustodyofJustine. MeranothenlearnedfromCastillothatinaneffortto
legalizetheadoptionofJustine,theCastillosturnedovercustodyofJustinetotheReceptionand
[14]
StudyCenterforChildrenoftheDepartmentofSocialWelfareandDevelopment.

To defend herself, Marquez proffered her own version of what had happened during her
[15]
testimony. Marquez said that she had only formally met Merano on September 6, 1998
althoughshehadknownofherforsometimealreadybecauseMeranoworkedasabeauticianat
thebeautyparlorofMarquezsfinancierinherrealestatebusiness.Marquez alleged that on that
day,MeranoofferedJustinetoherforadoption.MarqueztoldMeranothatshewasnotinterested
but she could refer her to her friend Modesto Castillo (Castillo). That very same night, while
MarquezwastakingcareofhersonwhowasthenconfinedattheMakatiMedicalCenter,Merano
allegedly proceeded to Marquezs house in Laguna and left Justine with Marquezs maid. The
followingday,whileMarquezwasatthehospitalagain,Castillo,accompaniedbyhismother,went
toMarquezshousetopickupJustine.SinceMarquezwasout,sheinstructedhermaidnottogive
JustinetoCastilloforfearofpossibleproblems.However, she still found Justine gone upon her
returnhomethatevening.Marquez allegedly learned of the encounter between the Castillos and
MeranowhenaSanPedropoliceofficercalledMarqueztotellherthatMerano,accompaniedby
twopoliceofficers,wenttoCastilloshousetogetJustine.ThiswasconfirmedbyCastillowhoalso
[16]
calledMarquezandtoldherthatMeranoofferedJustinetohimforadoption.

SPO2Fernandez,oneofthepoliceofficerswhoaccompaniedMeranotoCastilloshousein
February1999,waspresentedbythedefensetoprovethathewasawitnesstotheexecutionofa
documentwhereinMeranogaveupherrighttoJustinetotheCastillospouses.Fernandezsaidthat
on February 12, 1999, he and SPO4 Rapal accompanied Merano to the house of Castillo where
Justine was allegedly being kept. When they arrived at Castillos house, where they found baby
Justine, Merano and Castillo talked and after sometime, they arrived at an agreement regarding
Justines adoption. SPO2 Fernandez averred
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/181440.htm that he, Castillo, Merano and SPO4 Rapal left 3/11
4/13/2017 G.R.No.181440

Justines adoption. SPO2 Fernandez averred that he, Castillo, Merano and SPO4 Rapal left
CastilloshousetogotoalawyernearCastilloshouse.Aftertheagreementwasputintowriting,
theyallsignedthedocument,entitledKasunduansaPagtalikodsaKarapatanatPagpapaampon
[17]
saIsangAnak, withCastilloandMeranoaspartiestotheagreement,andSPO2Fernandezand
SPO4 Rapal as witnesses. SPO2 Fernandez claimed that he was surprised that Merano gave up
[18]
JustineforadoptionwhentheysupposedlywenttheretogetJustineback.

OnJanuary21,2004,theRTCfoundMarquezguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrime
chargedasfollows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused AIDA MARQUEZ a.k.a. AIDA
PULIDO,GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO
RETURNA MINOR under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act.
No.18andisherebysentencedtosufferthepenaltyofRECLUSIONPERPETUA.

For the Civil aspect, accused is ordered to pay private complainant FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(PHP50,000.00) for moral damage and TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP20,000.00) for
exemplarydamage.

[19]
Costsagainsttheaccused.


The RTC recounted in detail the factual antecedents of the case and made a comprehensive
synopsisofthetestimoniesofallthewitnessespresented.Infindingfortheprosecution,theRTC
held that the testimony of the complainant mother, Merano, was enough to convict the accused
[20]
Marquezbecauseitwascredibleandwascorroboratedbydocumentaryevidence.

On intermediate appellate review, the Court of Appeals was faced with the lone assignment of
errorasfollows:

THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDINCONVICTINGTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTOF
KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR WHEN THE LATTERS GUILT WAS
[21]
NOTPROVENBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.


OnAugust29,2007,theCourtofAppealsfoundMarquezsappealtobeunmeritoriousand
affirmedtheRTCsdecisionwithmodificationsonthedamagesawarded,towit:

WHEREFORE,theinstantAppealisDISMISSED.TheassailedDecision,datedJanuary212004,
of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 140, is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATIONS that nominal damages of P20,000.00 is hereby awarded in addition to the
P50,000.00moraldamages,whiletheawardforexemplarydamagesisaccordinglydeletedforlack
[22]
ofbasis.


The Court of Appeals, in affirming Marquezs conviction, relied on the satisfaction of the
elementsofthecrimeascharged.Itsaidthattheconflictingversionsofthepartiestestimoniesdid
notevenmatterasthefactremainedthatMarquezhad,attheveryleast,constructivecustodyover
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/181440.htm 4/11
4/13/2017 G.R.No.181440
notevenmatterasthefactremainedthatMarquezhad,attheveryleast,constructivecustodyover
Justineandshefailedtoreturnherwhendemandedtodoso.

TheaccusedMarquezisnowbeforeus,stillprayingforareversalofherconvictiononthe
[23]
sameargumentsshesubmittedtotheCourtofAppeals.

Afterapainstakingscrutinyoftheentirerecordsofthiscase,thisCourtfindsnoreasonto
reversethecourtsbelow.

Marquezarguesthatherguiltwasnotprovenbeyondreasonabledoubtbecausetheelements
[24]
constitutingthecrimeofseriousillegaldetentionorkidnappingarenotpresentinthiscase.

The crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention falls under Article 267 of the
RevisedPenalCode,viz:

Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Any private individual who shall
kidnapordetainanother,orinanyothermannerdeprivehimofhisliberty,shallsufferthepenalty
ofreclusionperpetuatodeath:

1.Ifthekidnappingordetentionshallhavelastedmorethanthreedays.

2.Ifitshallhavebeencommittedsimulatingpublicauthority.

3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained,orifthreatstokillhimshallhavebeenmade.

4.Ifthepersonkidnappedordetainedshallbeaminor,exceptwhentheaccusedisanyofthe
parents,femaleorapublicofficer.


Marquez further contends that it is illogical for her to voluntarily divulge to Merano the
whereaboutsofJustine,evenrecommendingtheassistanceofpoliceofficers,ifshewereindeed
guiltyofkidnapping.

Accusedismistaken,ifnotmisled,inherunderstandingandappreciationofthecrimeshe
waschargedwithandeventuallyconvictedof.

AreadingofthechargeintheinformationshowsthattheactimputedtoMarquezwas
not the illegal detention of a person, but involves her deliberate failure to restore a minor
babygirltoherparentafterbeingentrustedwithsaidbabyscustody.

ContrarytoMarquezsassertions,therefore,shewaschargedwithviolationofArticle270,
andnotArticle267,oftheRevisedPenalCode.

TheRevisedPenalCodeconsidersitacrimewhenapersonwhohasbeenentrustedwiththe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/181440.htm 5/11
4/13/2017 G.R.No.181440
TheRevisedPenalCodeconsidersitacrimewhenapersonwhohasbeenentrustedwiththe
custodyofaminorlaterondeliberatelyfailstoreturnsaidminortohisparentorguardian.This
maybefoundinArticle270,whichreads:

Art.270.Kidnappingandfailuretoreturnaminor.Thepenaltyofreclusionperpetua
shallbeimposeduponanypersonwho,beingentrustedwiththecustodyofaminorperson,shall
[25]
deliberatelyfailtorestorethelattertohisparentsorguardians.


Thiscrimehastwoessentialelements:

1.Theoffenderisentrustedwiththecustodyofaminorpersonand
[26]
2.Theoffenderdeliberatelyfailstorestorethesaidminortohisparentsorguardians.

This Court, in elucidating on the elements of Article 270, stated that while one of the
essentialelementsofthiscrimeisthattheoffenderwasentrustedwiththecustodyoftheminor,
whatisactuallybeingpunishedisnotthekidnappingbutthedeliberatefailureofthatpersonto
[27]
restoretheminortohisparentsorguardians. Asthepenaltyforsuchanoffenseissosevere,
theCourtfurtherexplainedwhatdeliberateasusedinArticle270means:

Indeed,theworddeliberateasusedinArticle270oftheRevisedPenalCodemustimplysomething
more than mere negligence it must be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or
[28]
intentionallyandmaliciouslywrong. (Emphasisours.)


It is clear from the records of the case that Marquez was entrusted with the custody of
Justine.WhetherthisisduetoMeranosversionofMarquezborrowingJustinefortheday,ordue
toMarquezsversionthatMeranoleftJustineatherhouse,itisundeniablethatinbothversions,
Marquezagreedtothearrangement,i.e.,totemporarilytakecustodyofJustine.Itdoesnotmatter,
for the first element to be present, how long said custody lasted as it cannot be denied that

MarquezwastheoneentrustedwiththecustodyoftheminorJustine.Thus,thefirstelementofthe
crimeissatisfied.

Astothesecondelement,neitherpartydisputesthatonSeptember6,1998,thecustodyof
Justine was transferred or entrusted to Marquez. Whether this lasted for months or only for a
couple of days, the fact remains that Marquez had, at one point in time, physical and actual
custody of Justine. Marquezs deliberate failure to return Justine, a minor at that time, when
demandedtodosobythelattersmother,showsthatthesecondelementislikewiseundoubtedly
presentinthiscase.

MarquezsinsistenceonMeranosallegeddesireandintentiontohaveJustineadoptedcannot
exonerateherbecauseithasnobearingonherdeliberatefailuretoreturnJustinetoMerano.Ifit
were true that Marquez merely facilitated Justines adoption, then there was no more need for
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/181440.htm 6/11
4/13/2017 G.R.No.181440
were true that Marquez merely facilitated Justines adoption, then there was no more need for
MeranotocontactMarquezandviceversa,sinceMerano,asMarquezclaimed,haddirectaccess
to Castillo. The evidence shows, however, that Merano desperately searched for a way to
communicatewithMarquez.AstestifiedtobybothMeranoandMarquez,Marquezfrequentedthe
beautyparlorwhereMeranoworkedin,andyet,curiously,Marquezwasnowheretobefoundafter
September6,1998. It took Marquez more than two months before communicating with Merano
again,aftershesupposedlyfacilitatedtheadoptionofJustine.IfMarquezwereindeedsurprisedto
learnaboutthechargesagainsther,shewouldhavemadeeveryefforttoclearhernamewhenshe
foundoutthattherewasastandingwarrantforherarrest.Shewouldhaveimmediatelycontacted
eitherMeranoorCastillotoconfrontthemonwhyshewasbeingimplicatedintheirarrangement.
Finally, even if it were true that Merano subsequently agreed to have Castillo adopt Justine, as
evidencedbytheKasunduansaPagtalikodsaKarapatanatPagpapaamponsaIsangAnak,this
wouldstillnotaffectMarquezsliabilityasthecrimeofkidnappingandfailuretoreturntheminor
hadbeenfullyconsummateduponherdeliberatefailuretoreturnJustinetoMerano.

Marquez avers that the prosecutions evidence has fallen short of the quantum of proof
[29]
required for conviction and that it has failed to establish [her] guilt with moral certainty.
Marquez argues that her testimony was not only straightforward and consistent but also
corroboratedbyadulyrespectedpoliceofficer.SheinsiststhatMeranostestimonyshouldnotbe
believedastheonlyreasonMeranofiledthischargewasbecauseshefailedtogetthemoneyshe
[30]
demandedfromMarquez.

ThisCourtisconstrainedtoonceagainreiteratethetimehonoredmaximthatthetrialcourts
[31]
assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect. In People v.

[32]
Bondoc, acasealsoinvolvingtheaccusedsfailuretoreturnaminor,weexplainedtherationale
ofthismaxim:

Wefindnocogentreasontodisturbthefindingsofthetrialcourt.Theissueinvolvedinthis
appeal is one of credibility, and this Court has invariably ruled that the matter of assigning
valuestothetestimonyofwitnessesisbestperformedbythetrialcourts because they, unlike
appellate courts, can weigh the testimony of witnesses in the light of the demeanor, conduct and
attitudeofthewitnessesatthetrial,exceptwhencircumstancesofweightorinfluencewereignored
ordisregardedbythemwhichdoesnotobtaininthepresentcase.

Unless there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or
misappliedsomefactorcircumstanceofweightthatwouldhaveaffectedtheresultofthecase,
this Court will not disturb factual findings of the lower court. Having had the opportunity of
observing the demeanor and behavior of witnesses while testifying, the trial court more than this
Courtisinabetterpositiontogaugetheircredibilityandproperlyappreciatetherelativeweightof
the often conflicting evidence for both parties. When the issue is one of credibility, the trial
[33]
court'sfindingsaregivengreatweightonappeal. (Emphasesours.)


TheRTC,infindingMeranocredible,stated:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/181440.htm 7/11
4/13/2017 G.R.No.181440
TheRTC,infindingMeranocredible,stated:

Between the two conflicting allegations, the Court, after taking into account all the
testimoniesandevidencespresentedbytheprosecutionandthedefense,findsfortheprosecution.
Thelonetestimonyofthecomplainantinspiredcredibilityandwascorroboratedbythedocuments,
towit,sheisthemotherofthechildandshesearchedforherchildwhenaccusedfailedtoreturnher
baby,filedthiscomplaintwhenshefailedtogetherchildandshewasabletorecoverthechildfrom
theDSWDatitsReceptionandStudyCenterforChildren(RSCC)asevidencedbytheDischarge
SlipafteraccusedinformedherthatthechildwaswithModestoCastillo.Ifindeedthecomplainant
had given up or have sold her baby, she would not have exhausted all efforts possible to find her
baby.Further,thechildwouldnothavebeeninRSCCbutitwouldhavebeenwithModestoCastillo
as per the document allegedly executed by Complainant. The testimony of the complainant was
[34]
straightforwardanddevoidofanysubstantialinconsistencies.


TheRTCfoundMarquezsdefenseofdenialtobeweak.Italsooutlinedtheinconsistencies
inMarquezstestimonieswhichfurtherdestroyedhercredibility.

ThemannerofappreciatingthedefenseofdenialwasdiscussedbythisCourtinthiswise:

As to the defense of denial, the same is inherently weak. Denial is a selfserving negative
evidence, which cannot be given greater weight than that of the declaration of a credible witness
whotestifiesonaffirmativematters.Likealibi,denialisaninherentlyweakdefense,whichcannot
prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Denial cannot
prevailoverthepositivetestimoniesofprosecutionwitnesseswhowerenotshowntohaveanyill
[35]
motivetotestifyagainstpetitioner.


Meranoscredibilityhasbeenestablishedbythetrialcourt,towhichtheCourtofAppeals
agreed.ThisCourtfindsnoreasontodepartfromthesefindings,especiallysinceitwasthetrial
courtwhichhadtheopportunitytoevaluateandassessthecredibilityofthewitnessespresented

before it. Both courts found Meranos testimony to be straightforward and consistent. Thus,
Marquezs denial and inconsistent statements cannot prevail over Meranos positive and credible
testimony.

AnentMarquezsclaimthatSPO2Fernandezstestimonycorroboratedhers,aperusalofthe
transcript of SPO2 Fernandezs testimony will reveal that its focus was mainly on how the
agreementonJustinesadoptioncametobe.ThefactthatSPO2Fernandezmayhavecorroborated
MarquezsdefenseofadoptionbytestifyingthathewitnessedhowMeranogaveupherchildfor
adoptiontoCastilloisirrelevant.Aswehavediscussedabove,thecrimeofkidnappingandfailure
to return a minor had been fully consummated way before the execution of the agreement in
February1999,thevalidityofwhichisnotinissuebeforeusnow.Moreover,evenifMeranohad
indeedgivenupJustinetoCastilloonFebruary12,1999,MeranosconsenttohaveJustineadopted
in1999hasnoimpactonherdemandtoregaincustodyofJustinein1998.

[36]
In People v. Bernardo, we held that the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a
minor underArticle 270 of the Revised Penal Code is clearly analogous to illegal and arbitrary
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/181440.htm 8/11
4/13/2017 G.R.No.181440

detentionorarrest,therebyjustifyingtheawardofmoraldamages.

TheawardofnominaldamagesisalsoallowedunderArticle2221oftheNewCivilCode
whichstatesthat:

Article2221.Nominaldamagesareadjudicatedinorderthatarightoftheplaintiff,which
has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the
purposeofindemnifyingtheplaintiffforanylosssufferedbyhim.


IttookMeranoalmostayeartolegallyrecoverherbaby.Justinewasonlythreemonthsold
when this whole debacle began. She was already nine months old when Merano saw her again.
ShespentherfirstbirthdayattheReceptionandStudyCenterforChildrenoftheDepartmentof
[37]
SocialWelfareandDevelopment. Evidently,Meranosrightasaparentwhichwasviolatedand
invadedmustbevindicatedandrecognized,therebyjustifyingtheawardofnominaldamages.



WHEREFORE,theDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedAugust29,2007inCAG.R.
CR. HC No. 00467 finding Aida Marquez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR under Article 270 of the Revised
PenalCodeisherebyAFFIRMED.NoCosts.

SOORDERED.




TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:




RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson





PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR. MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/181440.htm 9/11
4/13/2017 G.R.No.181440





JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice






CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsinthe
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterofthe
opinionoftheCourtsDivision.



RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.418pennedbyAssociateJusticeNoelG.TijamwithAssociateJusticesMartinS.Villarama,Jr.(nowAssociateJusticeof
theSupremeCourt)andSesinadoE.Villon,concurring.
[2]
CArollo,pp.1527pennedbyJudgeLeticiaP.Morales.
[3]
AnActtoAmendArticlesSixtyTwo,TwoHundredandSixtySeven,TwoHundredandSixtyEight,TwoHundredandSeventy,
Two Hundred and SeventyOne, Two Hundred and NinetyFour, and Two Hundred and NinetyNine of the Revised Penal
Code.ApprovedonSeptember25,1946.
[4]
ThiscasewasoriginallyraffledtoBranch62.Uponthepartiesjointmanifestationthattheallegedkidnappedvictimwasaminor,the
courtorderedthetransferandreraffleofthecasetotheappropriateFamilyCourt.Records,p.26.
[5]
Records,p.1thenameshouldreadCarolinaMeranoyCunanan.
[6]
Id.at64.
[7]
TSN,November28,2002,pp.710.
[8]
Id.at1012.
[9]
Id.at22.
[10]
Id.at1216.
[11]
Id.at1719.
[12]
Records,p.121.
[13]
TSN,November28,2002,pp.1932.
[14]
TSN,November28,2002,p.35.
[15]
TSN,February20,2003andMarch7,2003.
[16]
TSN,February20,2003,pp.314.
[17]
Records,p.209.
[18]
TSN,August26,2003,pp.34,815,3235.
[19]
CArollo,p.27.
[20]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/181440.htm 10/11
4/13/2017 G.R.No.181440
[20]
Id.at26.
[21]
Id.at57.
[22]
Rollo,p.17.
[23]
Id.at27.
[24]
CArollo,pp.6364.
[25]
RevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.18.
[26]
Peoplev.Bernardo,428Phil.769,776(2002).
[27]
Id.
[28]
Id.
[29]
CArollo,p.67.
[30]
TSN,February20,2003,pp.1314.
[31]
Peoplev.Pastrana,436Phil.127,137(2002).
[32]
G.R.No.98400,May23,1994,232SCRA478.
[33]
Id.at484485.
[34]
CArollo,p.26.
[35]
Madsaliv.People,G.R.No.179570,February4,2010,611SCRA596,608.
[36]
Supranote26at777.
[37]
TSN,November28,2002,p.33.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/181440.htm 11/11