Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

010 Phil 302:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-4026. March 7, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PASCUAL DULAY, Defendant-Appellant.

I. Javier, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. SEDUCTION UNDER PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. — A promise to marry a woman over 12 and under 23 years of age, abandoned voluntarily and without just cause, and given with the evil intention of committing an unlawful act, such as to lie with the young woman of said age, constitutes the crime of seduction with fraud under article 443 of the Penal Code.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


In the month of May 1904, Pascual Dulay, of about 23 years of age, began courting Gregoria Pimentel a girl of 16, residing in the pueblo of Aringay, San Fernando, La Union. Their relations became every day more intimate, on account of the promises of marriage made by the accused Dulay, and the girl was seduced. The defendant accomplished his desire for the first time on a certain night in the latter part of December, 1905. The act was repeated on various occasions from that time until the 28th of April the following year. On the 29th of the latter month, the accused, besides the promise previously given to the injured girl, informed her parents of his intention to marry her, and following the advice of the parents the marriage was postponed until the time when the accused was to complete his studies. However, in the month of June following, in view of the fact that his fiancee was pregnant, the defendant disregarded his promise of marriage, and denied being the author of the girl’s pregnancy. The latter positively asserted that she never had sexual intercourse with any other man, and that during his courtship he sent to her several letters, cards, photographs of himself, handkerchiefs, and a ring, all of which were exhibited at the trial and recognized by him. He confessed that he had maintained friendly relations with her, but denied that he had ever had any sexual intercourse with her, or that he was the father of the child born on the 20th of October, 1906, which was produced at the trial.

Among the letters exhibited, written in the dialect of the province, one appears at folio 44 of the record, the English translation of which taken from the Spanish translation is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"GOYANG:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I can not stand my heart’s grief because if I could help it I would not part from you; but, what can I do? I must leave for important reasons; however, although I am going away, some one will make arrangements for my return in the month of June; may Heaven grant this. Oh! my Gregoria, I feel uneasy; I don’t know what to do; you do as I have told you to do; do it because I think it is more advisable that you should tell the old man (grandfather) the sin we have committed in the eyes of God, for if somebody else does it, or, if you wait until he notices the consequences thereof, it will be worse for you. Do it, do not fail to comply with what I am asking of you so that the old man may not become too angry.

"Do go and hear mass tomorrow, and I will wait for you because I have a very important thing to ask you to do; hear mass without fail so that you may know what you ought to do; I will do the same so that our intentions may not have bad results.

"Your brother [among Ilocanos, this word is used when the parties are very intimate, or when they are lovers],

"PASCUAL."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above facts are duly proven in this case, and constitute the crime of estupro (seduction), defined and punished by article 443 paragraph 3 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as, by reason of the intimate relations between the accused and the injured party, the latter was seduced by his repeated promises of marriage, and she permitted him to lie with her on various occasions from the latter part of December, 1905, to the last days of April, 1906; in consequence of these acts the girl became pregnant and gave birth to a child on the 20th of October the following. Without any just reason the accused has refused to comply with the promise of marriage made to Gregoria Pimentel; therefore, it is clear that he acted deceitfully when making the promise solely with the unlawful purpose of inducing her to yield to his desire, and upon pretext of her pregnancy he wrote to her parents stating that he declined to carry out his promise of marriage.

A promise of marriage given to a woman over 12 and under 23 years of age, with the evil intent of committing an unlawful act and voluntarily abandoned without just cause, constitutes the deceit referred to in article 458 of the Code of Spain, equivalent to article 443 of that of the Philippines, according to the doctrine established by the supreme court of Spain, among other decisions in that of October 7, 1864.

The culpability of the accused as the only author of the crime can not be denied, inasmuch as he acknowledged that he had maintained intimate relations with the aforenamed Gregoria Pimentel from May 1904 to the same month in 1906. No evidence is offered that would even indicate that the girl had maintained any such relations with any man other than the accused, and in view of her affirmation that Pascual Dulay was the only man who did lie with her on the several occasions, beginning with a certain night in December, 1905, and that the accused was the father of the child to which she gave birth on the 20th of October 1906, it is unquestionable that the accused is responsible for the crime and that he has incurred the penalty that the law imposes, because he managed to have intercourse with the injured girl on several occasions by means of deceit and committed the seduction under promise of marriage.

The translation of the letter without date, hereinbefore inserted, shows that the accused addressed it to the injured girl while he was still in the pueblo of Aringay, and before coming to this city; that he wrote the same after he had sexual intercourse with the girl, and at a time when he was aware that she had conceived and was pregnant; it was for this reason that he compelled her to inform her father of the offense that they had committed.

The defendant alleges that from the latter part of December, 1905, to the 25th of April, 1906, he had not returned to his pueblo where the injured girl resided, and that as her confinement only took place on the 20th of October of the latter year and the first carnal intercourse, according to her own statement, took place upon one of the last days of December, 1905, it thereby appears that the pregnancy of the injured party lasted about two hundred and ninety-eight days at least; that is , more than nine months. But by such data it is not shown that the accused is not the author of the pregnancy of the girl, who states positively that from December, 1905, to April, 1906, the accused repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her.

If the ordinary average duration of the pregnancy of women is nine months and some days, a tardy birth is not an impossibility or an unusual to have a delayed or retarded conception, one of the inexplicable mysteries of nature, since the opinions of physicians upon the matter are conflicting; for this reason the Penal Code, by article 476, imposes punishment upon a widow who marries before three hundred and one days have elapsed from the death of her husband, a prohibition which is in accordance with other legal provisions, and which is intended to prevent confusion in connection with filiation and paternity, inasmuch as the widow might have conceived and become pregnant by her late husband. So that the law when fixing the said three hundred and one days, admits the possibility that a woman may be in pregnancy for more than nine months, and that the birth of a child taking place nine months after it was conceived is not an impossibility.

In the commission of the crime in question no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance is present; therefore, the judgment appealed from is in accordance with the law.

For the foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from, dated the 7th of March, 1907, sentencing Pascual Dulay to the penalty of four months of arresto mayor, to recognize and maintain the offspring, to indemnify the injured party, Gregoria Pimentel, in the sum of P1,000 and, in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment which shall not exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs, should be affirmed with the costs against the appellant; provided, however, that the amount to be paid to the injured party for the subsistence of her child until the same shall reach his majority, shall be P15 monthly. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Willard and Carson, JJ., dissent.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-4447 March 6, 1908 - MURPHY v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L-3880 March 9, 1908 - TEOPISTA CASTRO v. ANTONIO MARTINEZ GALLEGOS

    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-4085 March 12, 1908 - CARLS PALANCA TANGUINLAY v. FRANCISCO G. QUIROS

    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-4209 March 19, 1908 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES

    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-4241 March 20, 1908 - AGUSTIN G. GAVIERES v. ADMIN. F THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LUISA

    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3762 March 27, 1908 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ALEJANDRO AMECHAZURRA

    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. L-3007 March 30, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. L-4257 March 31, 1908 - SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO v. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL.

    010 Phil 707