The People of the Philippines vs .

Lilia Gutierrez
G.R. No. 81020 May 28, 1991

Facts:
On July 13, 1984, Lilia Gutierrez went to the residence of Lourdes Elpedes, her sister-in-law, at the
Nichols Airbase, Pasay City. She obtained permission from Elpedes that she would take her youngest
son, Hazel, 2 ½ years old for the day because Maximiano Mariano, Lilia Gutierrez’s husband, wanted
to spend some time with his nephew in Paco, Manila. Gutierrez and Elpedes agreed that the child
shall be returned by 4:00 pm on that same day. When Gutierrez arrived at home, she discovered that
her husband and their belongings were gone. After recovering from crying, Gutierrez proceeded to
residence of her former employers in Intramuros, Mr. & Mrs. Abraham Felipe, and executed an
agreement wherein, Gutierrez claimed Hazel Elpedes is her fatherless son and surrendered the
custody of the child in favor of the couple for the amount of P250.00 which was evidenced by a
receipt.

After Gutierrez failing to return Hazel Elpedes, Lourdes Elpedes went to Gutierrez’ residence however
there was no one there. Together with her husband, Frank Elpedes, they spent the next two days
looking for Gutierrez at Herran St. (now Pedro Gil St.) On July 15, 1984, Gutierrez was spotted by
Frank Elpedes in a telephone booth along Herran St. and approached her, and was immediately
brought to the Wester Police District Station along United Nations Avenue, Manila. With Frank
Elpedes and Patrolman Diosdado Deotoy, Gutierrez led them to the Felipe residence in Intramuros,
only to find out that the couple and the child was not there, and based from the information received
from the Barangay Chairman, that the child was in Cogeo, Antipolo, Rizal. With that information, the
group returned to the police station and then proceeded to Antipolo, where they recovered Hazel from
the residence of the Felipe spouses.

At this time, Gutierrez admitted that Maximiano Mariano, her husband and brother of Lourdes Elpedes
has abandoned her, and to avenge him has sold his nephew. On the evening of July 15, 1984, upon
return of the group to the police station, Gutierrez was investigated and was placed under arrest.

In court, Lourdes Elpedes testified the situations on which Gutierrez obtained Hazel, their efforts as
couple to locate Guttierez, and the effort of her husband to recover Hazel in Intramuros and in
Antipolo. Patrolman Diosdado Deotoy also testified the recovery efforts for Hazel Elpedes, and how
Felipe spouses unhesitatingly surrendered the child upon knowing its real parentage, as well as the
documents that emanated during their transaction with Gutierrez that was admitted as exhibits by the
prosecution.

Patrolman Ernesto Callos’ testimony was all about the investigation of Gutierrez. Wherein, Gutierrez
voluntarily admitted the “sale” of the child and her motive for “selling” him, and that Gutierrez has
waived the assistance of counsel, and in deference to her constitutional rights, she declined to reduce
this admission into writing.

Gutierrez testified on her own behalf as the sole witness for the defense, wherein she affirmed that
she had fetched Hazel Elpedes from his parents upon the instructions of her husband. In a confused
state, while trying to locate her husband whom had abandoned her, she entrusted the child to the
Felipe couple for safekeeping where she had feigned the child as her own. She had received
P180.00 from the Felipes the following day, without considering that it was to recompence for the
child. Though she admitted placing her thumbmarks on Exhibit E, she denied placing her signatures
on Exhibits D and E and was unaware why the Felipe couple presented such documents to her.

Gutierrez contends the evidence that she intentionally not return Hazel Elpedes to his parents by
selling him to to the Felipe spouses. And claims that the Felipe spouses should testify that she had
indeed sold the child, since Lourdes Elpedes testimony regarding the recovery of the child in Antipolo
is invalid as she was not there on when it happened, while Pat. Callos’ testimony of her admission of
giving away Hazel was merely a hearsay.

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, the lower court rendered a decision dated 14
September 1987 finding the accused guilty of the crime charged.
Appellant in her Brief, assigns a single error, asserting that the trial court erred in convicting her
because her guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue :
Whether or not Lilia Gutierrez is criminally liable for kidnapping and failure to return a minor and guilt
has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Held :

According the Revised Penal Code Article 270, there are two elements to classify the offense as
kidnapping and failure to return a minor. First, the offender has been entrusted with the custody of a
minor person, wherein the appellant admitted that Hazel Elpedes was entrusted to her by his mother
Lourdes Elpedes, her sister-in-law, in the morning of July 13, 1984.

The second element, is that the offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or
guardians, which was the established by the prosecution’s evidence. This includes Gutierrez knowing
the whereabouts of Hazel Elpedes which was evident when she led Frank Elpedes and Pat. Deotoy to
recover the child at the Felipe residence in Intramuros which was unsuccessful. Furthermore, the
motive of Gutierrez to leave the child with the Felipe couple for an indefinite period is an essential
element on the offense charged. The prosecution only needs to prove is that she deliberately failed to
return the minor to his parents, which was proven on the testimony of the appellant herself. As well
as there were no efforts from the appellant to return the minor to his parents, not until the recovery
with Frank Elpedes in both Intramuros and Antipolo Felipe residences.

The testimony of Lourdes Elpedes’ is considered irrelevant as she was not physically present during
the recovery of Hazel in Antipolo, but Pat. Deotoy had participated in the operation and has testified
accordingly. Based on the statement of Pat. Deotoy, Gutierrez had admitted that she took the child
and left him with the Felipe’s, which was as well testified by the appellant. That during the
investigation of the appellant with Pat. Callos, she had repeatedly confirmed that she had indeed sold
the child to the Felipe couple. The open court pronounced Pats. Deotoy and Callos as credible
witnesses based on their observed demeanors and involvement on the investigation results of the
case.

Furthermore, with appellant affixing her thumbmark on the Agreement with the Felipe spouses, as
well as receiving money are substantial to contend the appellant’s claim that she unintentionally failed
to return the minor to his parents.

With the two elements being present, appellant is criminally liable for kidnapping and failure to
return a minor. Though there were mitigating circumstances that shows that appellant had no
criminal mind or intent to commit so grave an offense, as she voluntarily surrendered herself and
accompanied the police in recovering the minor; these cannot be considered in her favor under Article
63. With this, Lilia Gutierrez was sentenced with reclusion perpetua with recommendation for an early
pardon after the partial service of sentence.

The Decision of the trial court dated 14 September 1987 imposing the penalty of life
imprisonment upon the appellant, is hereby AFFIRMED,