GR No.

81020 May 28, 1991

People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appelle
vs
Lilia Gutierrez Y Franco, defendant- appellant
FACTS:
- That on or about 13 August 1984, the accused, having been entrusted the custody of HAZEL ELPEDES, a
boy, 2.5y.o, a minor, deliberately failed and refused to return the said child to his parents, Frank and Lourdes
Elpedes. She instead sold the said child for P250.00 to her former employer.
- Accused testified that she fetched the child upon the instruction of her husband (lourdes elpedes' brother)
and had agreed to return him at 4pm same day. Upon arriving home, she discovered that her husband has
abandoned her. She went looking for her husband and temporarily entrusted the child to Felipe spouses who
gave her P250. It never occured to her to return the child because she was in a confused state of mind. She
denied having sold the child, but later voluntarily confessed that she did so to take revenge due to the
bitterness she felt over the betrayal and humiliation inflicted by her husband.
- 15 August 1984, the accused was arrested and the boy was recovered in Antipolo Rizal.
-RTC br. 37, Manila convicted the accused Lilia Gutierrez for the crime of KIDNAPPING & FAILURE TO
RETURN A MINOR and to suffer life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) with costs. Accused appealed to the
Court.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the accused had criminal intent to commit the crime.
2. Whether or not the accused be recommended to pardon as the penalty of life imprisonment would be too
harsh.
HELD: 
1. NO. The Court ruled that the accused-appellant had no intention to commit so grave a crime. After she was
found, she voluntarily surrendered and accompanied the police and child's parents to Antipolo Rizal where
the child was recovered. Her previous admissions and cooperation with the police show that she did not
have criminal mind or intent.
2. YES. The penalty of life imprisonment would be too harsh considering that the accused is illiterate and had
no educational background. The degree of malice involved does not warrant the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. The Court, therefore, recommended executive clemency in accordance with Art 5 of the Revised
Penal Code.
* The court affirmed the decision of the RTC and increased moral damages to P5,000.00.

Page 1 of 1