Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

 

Home of Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

www.chanrobles.com

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3859. January 15, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES and ROMANA NALLES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FELIX ARLANTE, Defendant-Appellant.

Alfredo Chicote, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. SEDUCTION; TWO PHASES OF THE SAME CRIME. — The crime punished in this cause is the one included in paragraph 1 of article 443 of the Penal Code, which is essentially distinct from the one referred to in paragraph 3 of the same article, the difference being that in the latter kind of seduction deceit is necessary, while in the force case it would not be punished were it not for the character of the person who commits the offense, and on account of his superior power or abuse of confidence.

2. ID.; ABUSE OF AUTHORITY. — When the offender is a public officer, a priest or minister, a servant, domestic, tutor, teacher, or under any title is in charge of the education or keeping of the offended person, as in the present case, the act is punishable although deceit may not have been used.

3. ID.; ID. — And even though the accused was not actually in charge of the keeping of the offended person, it can not be doubted that as the girl was a domestic, the crime is included within paragraph 1 of said article. "Upon the word domestic being employed in said legal provision segregating it from that of servant, the term is applied to persons who usually live under the same roof, pertain to the same house, and constitute, in this sense, a part thereof, distinguishing it from the term servant whereby a person serving another on a salary is designated; in this manner, it has been property used." (Decision in cassation dated November 11, 1881.)


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


Upon the appeal of the accused from the final judgment whereby he has been sentenced to one year eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, with the accessory penalties, to indemnify the injured woman in the sum of P500, to maintain the offspring by the payment of P8 monthly to the mother until further orders from the court, and to pay the costs, it appears:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That the accused had carnally abused two orphan girls, relatives of his wife, who were sheltered in his house; that they respectively gave birth to a boy and a girl, one of them on the 5th of November, 1905, this being the one who now files the complaint for seduction, and the other on the 15th of October of the same year, the latter appearing in the case as a witness for the prosecution.

No error whatever, either of fact or law, can be assigned with respect to the consideration given to the proofs when convicting the accused herein, for even by the evidence produced by the defense, such as the declaration of the wife of the accused, the facts are corroborated and further confirmed.

The crime punished in the cause is the one included in paragraph 1 of article 443 of the Penal Code, which is essentially different from that referred to in paragraph 3 of the same article, the difference being that in this latter kind of seduction fraud or deceit is required, while in the other the act would not be punished were it not for the character of the person committing the same, on account of the excess of power or abuse of confidence of which the offender availed himself.

When the offender is a public officer, a priest or minister, a servant, domestic, tutor, teacher, or under any title is in charge of the education or keeping of the offended person, as in the present case, the act is punishable although fraud or deceit may not have been used.

And even though the accused were not, as a matter of fact, in charge of the keeping of the offended girl, it is beyond doubt that, as she was a domestic, the crime is included within paragraph 1 of said article. "Upon the word domestic being employed in said legal provision segregating it from that of servant, the term is applied to persons usually living under the same roof, pertaining to the same house, and constituting, in this sense, a part thereof, distinguishing it from the term servant whereby a person serving another on a salary is designated; in this manner, it has been properly used." (Decision in cassation dated November 11, 1881.)

For the foregoing reasons, and as the judgment appealed from is in accordance with law, the same is hereby affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant, and it is so ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

HomeJurisprudenceSupreme Court Decisions1994 : Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsAugust 1994 : Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsTop of Page