Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > March 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. 6624 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BANILA

019 Phil 130:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 6624. March 20, 1911.]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO BANILA, RUFINO MARASIGAN, and FAUSTO BALTONADO, Defendants-Appellants.

Alberto Barretto, for Appellants.

Acting Attorney-General Harvey, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF ABDUCTION. — To constitute the crime of abduction, it is necessary to establish two essential elements. First, the act must be committed by force or violence; and, second, it must be done with unchaste design.


D E C I S I O N


TRENT, J.:


The defendants and appellants were each sentenced by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tayabas, Hon. Mariano Cui presiding, for the crime of rapto, to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, to the corresponding accessory penalties, to jointly and severally indemnify the offended party in the sum of P500, and to pay an equal proportion of the costs of the cause.

On the afternoon of June 19, 1910, a large banca, or sailboat, the property of one Pedro Elmido, and manned by various persons, among whom were the defendants Rufino Marasigan and Pedro Banila, anchored near the beach within the jurisdiction of the town of Sariaya, Province of Tayabas. After having discharged its cargo, and taken aboard the cargo for the return trip, its owner, Pedro Elmido, thinking it time to sail, asked Rufino Marasigan, who was the piloto of the boat, if he were not going to give the order to sail. Rufino replied that it would be better to wait until night for the wind to change from the land. He also stated that he and his companions were waiting for a married couple who were going to take passage that night. He then disembarked and went in the direction of the town. Shortly thereafter he returned, bringing with him a trunk, petate, and a bolo and placed them aboard.

On that same night, Sunday the 19th of June, 1910, four men went to the casita which was inhabited by the offended party, Crisanta Tisico, a young single girl about twelve years of age, her brother Fortunato, and her grandmother, Juana Onlayao, who was about sixty years of age. This small house was situated in the barrio of Castañas, town of Sariaya. These men having awakened the old lady, Juana, she ordered her grandsons Fortunato, to go out and learn what the people who were calling desired. On going outside of the house, Fortunato recognized the defendants Benito Mañibo (who was sentenced and did not appeal), Fausto Baltonado, and Pedro Banila, and asked them what they desired. They replied by asking Fortunato who were in the house. After having been informed that there wasn’t anybody in the house except himself, his small sister, and his grandmother, they caught hold of his arms, struck and kicked him, and then carried him about ten meters from the house and tied him up to a tree, threatening him with death if he screamed. While the young boy was being tied Benito Mañibo and Fausto Baltonado entered the house and began striking the old lady Juana with the flat side of their bolos. Pedro then caught Crisanta by her knees while she was sleeping and started to raise her up. Crisanta awoke and resisted Pedro, striking him with her hand. Pedro then started to drag her from the house and she caught hold of her grandmother and then she aid this Fausto struck her across the wrist with the flat side of his bolo. Then Pedro dragged her out and turned her over to Benito Mañibo. Benito then carried her along, being followed by Pedro, and after having gone some few yards from the house they forced her to go along by pulling her by the hands. The little girl attempted to scream but was prevented from doing so by Benito placing his hand over her mouth. Benito and Pedro took the girl to the beach and placed her aboard the sailboat. Within a very few minutes Rufino and Fausto arrived and went aboard. The boat was then put under way for Lobo, Batangas. Immediately after these four men left the house, which was about twelve o’clock at night, Juana Onlayao went to the house of the lieutenant of the barrio and reported this occurrence and exhibited the bruises or contusions which had been inflicted upon her at that time. She insisted on following these parties with the hope of obtaining the release of her grandchild, but on account of her age and the condition of her eyes she was unable to make the trip that night.

When the boat was out at sea on that Sunday night, the defendant Pedro began threatening the little girl, Crisanta, saying that if she did not agree to marry Benito Mañibo, or live with him as his concubine, she would be thrown into the sea. When the banca arrived at a place called Laiya, it was anchored to permit Fausto Baltonado and his wife to disembark. After this was done the trip was continued to Lobo. After leaving Laiya and before reaching Lobo the little girl discovered that the defendants had taken her tampipi which contained her clothes and a part of her brothers clothes, and also the sum of P10 in cash. This tampipi was later recovered, together with the clothing, but the P10 were never returned. Before reaching Lobo the owner of the boat, Pedro Elmido, became suspicious that the little girl was being abducted, he having heard the defendants threatening her, and immediately on arrival in Lobo he reported the matter to the lieutenant of the barrio, and the lieutenant reported to the municipal president, and an investigation was started which resulted in the arrest of these defendants. The little girl was finally returned to her home after seventeen days.

The facts above stated constitute the crime of abduction, as defined and punished by article 445 of the Penal Code, which article reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The abduction of a woman, executed against her will and with unchaste designs, shall be punished with the penalty of reclusion temporal."cralaw virtua1aw library

To constitute the crime of abduction it is necessary to establish two essential elements: First, the act must be committed by force or violence; and, second, it must be done with unchaste designs (miras deshonestas). As to the first, the above facts show clearly that the little girl was taken from her home by means of force and violence. The defendants did not only strike the offended party with the flat side of their bolos, but also struck the old lady Juana and the young man Fortunato. The latter they tied to a coconut tree nearby for the purpose, no doubt, of preventing him from interfering in any manner with the abduction of his sister. The fact that Benito Mañibo and his companions were trying to force the little girl to marry Benito, or live with him as his concubine, shows clearly that the intention of the defendants in abducting the girl was to force her to have illicit intercourse with Benito. Benito. was a married man and well knew that he could not marry this little girl.

The defense attempted to establish, by the testimony of the defendants Benito and Rufino, that the taking of the young girl was done by Benito alone and with not only her consent but also that of her brother and grandmother. This defense has entirely failed. The testimony of the witnesses for the defense has not overcome the direct and positive testimony of the offended girl, which is corroborated by her brother and grandmother, and also by the owner of the boat. The latter testified that the four defendants returned to the boat about twelve o’clock on that Sunday night, bringing with them this little girl. The little girl specifically and definitely identified all of these defendants as having taken a direct part in forcibly taking her from her home.

In the commission of this crime there were present the Keneric aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and the commission of the acts in the house of the offended party, inasmuch as it has been shown that the defendants took advantage of the darkness of the night and the late hour to commit this brutal act. No extenuating circumstances were present.

The judgment appealed from being strictly in accordance with the law and the merits of the case, the same is hereby affirmed: Provided, however, That the appellants be also condemned to return to the offended family the P10 appropriated by them. Costs will be taxes against the appellants. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-5600 and 5602 March 2, 1911 - FROEHLICH & KUTTNER v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    018 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-6064 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SY-SUIKAO

    018 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-6289 March 2, 1911 - JOSE M. ARROYO v. MATIAS GRANADA

    018 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-6300 March 2, 1901

    UNITED STATES v. JACINTA MATA, ET AL.

    018 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-6411 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO REYES

    018 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-6423 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SIMEON QUIAOIT

    018 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-6457 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO MADAMBA

    018 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-6486 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL B. CATOLICO

    018 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-6510 March 2, 191

    UNITED STATES v. POLICARPIO GAVARLAN

    018 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-5969 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CEFERINO BENITEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-6050 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANO RAMOS

    018 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-6059 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ARCADIO BERNALES

    018 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-6330 March 6, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ORACION, ET AL.

    018 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-6493 March 9, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON NER

    018 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-5446 March 10, 1911 - MANUEL CEA v. MARIANO P. VILLANUEVA

    018 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-6409 March 10, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CRUZ

    018 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. L-5554 March 11, 1919

    JUAN NOEL v. GERONIMO GODINEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-5619 March 11, 1919

    ENGRACIO ORENSE v. CIRILIO JAUCIAN

    018 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-5752 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO SISON

    018 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-6102 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DINEROS

    018 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-6110 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO DUCO

    019 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6177 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA BRIOSO

    019 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 6189 March 11, 1911 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. TEODORO LIMJUCO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-6343 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ

    019 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. L-6445 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO MADAMBA

    019 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-6483 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FILEMON MENDEZ

    019 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4641 March 13, 1911 - SEMINARY OF SAN CARLOS v. MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    019 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-5741 March 13, 1911 - ESTANISLAUA ARENAS v. FAUSTO O. RAYMUNDO

    019 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5358 March 16, 1911 - LEE LIONG v. ISIDORO HIZOLA

    019 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-5729 March 16, 1911 - VICENTE PADILLA v. SIMEON LINSANGAN

    019 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 6219 March 16, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN DOMINGO

    019 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-6407 March 16, 1911 - FRANCISCA FERNANDEZ v. R.M. SHEARER

    019 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-6410 March 16, 1911 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. LA CORPORACION DE LOS PP. DOMINICOS

    019 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-5174 March 17, 1911 - CANDIDO PASCUAL v. EUGENIO DEL SAZ OROZCO

    019 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-5759 March 17, 191

    WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. MATSON

    019 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 6485 March 17, 1911 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ORIA HERMANOS

    019 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-6002 March 18, 1911 - AMERICAN SURETY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. PRUDENCIO BATANGAN

    019 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-6061 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO PADO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-6082 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO VICENTILLO

    019 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-6231 March 18, 1911 - CELESTINO SYTIAR CLEMENTE v. AMBROSIO MARASIGAN

    019 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 6365 March 18, 1911 - CANUTA GUERRERO v. EULALIO SINGSON, ET AL.

    019 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 6469 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO SIMBAHAN

    019 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 6378 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PELAGIO CAPA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 6624 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BANILA

    019 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-6160 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL NAVARRO

    019 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-6230 March 21, 1911 - A.R. HAGER v. ALBERT J. BRYAN

    019 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 6276 March 21, 1911 - TOMASA M. SANTIAGO ET AL. v. MARCELA C. CRUZ

    019 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 6344 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 6481 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. QUINTIN MONDEJAR

    019 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 5688 March 22, 1911 - HENRY BLUM v. MARIANO BARRETTO

    019 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 6432 March 22, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BALAGTAS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-6008 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINA ORTIZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-6128 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE ARZADON

    019 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 6427 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CONSTANCIO FLORES

    019 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 6491 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TAMPACAN, ET AL.

    019 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-5815 March 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PALA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3026 March 25, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MELCHOR BABASA

    019 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-5333 March 25, 1911 - UY ALOC, ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING, ET AL.

    019 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-5640 March 25, 1911 - BENIGNO GOITIA v. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    019 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-5843 March 25, 191

    UNITED STATES v. CANUTO GUSTILO

    019 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. L-6016 March 25, 1911 - ANDRES PUNZALAN v. SISENANDO FERRIOLS

    019 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-6019 March 25, 1911 - JUAN N. ARAGON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    019 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 6372 March 27, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL MOLINA

    019 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6354 March 28, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO SALAZAR, ET AL.

    019 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-5939 March 29, 1911 - JOSE MARIN v. VALENTINA NACIANCENO

    019 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 6760 March 29, 1911 - NICOLAS E. NUÑEZ v. CHAS. A. LOW

    019 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 6044 March 30, 1911 - MANUEL M. PADIN v. R. E. HUMPHEMREYS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 4877 March 31, 1911 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO v. CHO-CHUN CHAC

    019 Phil 258