Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > February 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-36458 February 21, 1983 - FRANCISCA ALIMAGNO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

205 Phil. 602:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-36458. February 21, 1983.]

FRANCISCA ALIMAGNO and JOVITA MELO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Joaquin E. Chipeco and Fortunato Gupit, Jr., for Petitioners.

The Solicitor General for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT; LIMITED TO REVIEW ONLY ERRORS OF LAW; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT ACCEPTED AS CONCLUSIVE. — We find no reason in this case to depart from the rule which limits this Court’s appellant jurisdiction to review only errors of law "accepting as conclusive the factual findings of the lower court upon its own assessment of the evidence." (Evangelista v. Abad Santos, 51 SCRA 416)

2. CRIMINAL LAW; CORRUPTION OF MINORS; "PERSON UNDER AGE," CONSTRUED. — Article 402 of the Civil Code provides that "majority commences upon attainment of the age of twenty-one years." When the lawmakers specifically provide "persons under age,’’ instead of "below eighteen years of age," they could mean no other than that the offended party must be below 21 years old, and not below 18 years of age. The same is true in Acts of Lasciviousness in Article 336, White Slave Trade in Article 341, and Forcible Abduction in Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, where the age limit is not set at eighteen. Justice Ramon C. Aquino, in his commentary on the Revised Penal Code, page 1623, Book II, states that "Art. 340 was taken from Art. 444 of the old Penal Code. The requisites of the crime of corruption of minors are that the accused acted habitually or with the abuse of authority or confidence; that he promoted or facilitated the prostitution or corruption of persons below 21 years of age and that he so acted in order to satisfy the lust of another.’’ (Emphasis supplied)

3. ID.; ID.; PENALTY IMPOSABLE UPON AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE. — Where there is no modifying circumstance present, the penalty in its medium period should be imposed, or not less than 3 months and 11 days nor more than 4 months and 20 days. Otherwise stated, the petitioner Jovita Melo should suffer the penalty of 4 months and 20 days, instead of 6 months of arresto mayor.


D E C I S I O N


RELOVA, J.:


Petitioners Francisca Alimagno and Jovita Melo were convicted, as principal and accomplice, respectively, of the crime of corruption of minor, as defined in Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code, by the City Court of San Pablo, and sentenced as follows:chanrobles law library : red

". . . The accused Francisca Alimagno, to suffer the penalty ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days as maximum, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P500.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, which shall not be more than one-third of the principal penalty herein imposed and to pay the proportionate costs; the accused Jovita Melo, to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P200.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency which shall not be more than one-third of the principal penalty herein imposed and to pay the proportionate costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Court of Appeals modified the decision with respect to the subsidiary penalty, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"However, the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency of the defendants to pay the respective indemnities imposed upon them should be eliminated from the dispositive portion of the lower court’s decision. (Rep. Act No. 5465). Moreover, it should be ordained therein that in the event of insolvency of one of them, the other should be subsidiarily liable thereto, with right of reimbursement, pursuant to Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code.

"WHEREFORE, with the modification indicated above, the decision appealed from, being in keeping with the evidence and the law, is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants."cralaw virtua1aw library

The main facts are set forth in the decision of the Court of Appeals, from which We quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Complainant Filomena de la Cruz, who was undisputedly born on August 10, 1946 at Calamba, Laguna (Exh. B), was employed in the house of Pita Alvero at San Pablo City as a domestic helper for a period of only nine (9) days from November 20, 1964 to November 29, 1964. On November 27, 1964, she came to know defendant Francisca Alimagno who was bringing money to her employer Pita Alvero. On said date, defendant Alimagno tried to convince her to leave the house of Pita Alvero, promising her a better job. Defendant Alimagno, having gained her confidence, succeeded in thus persuading her to leave the house of Pita Alvero. Hence, on November 29, 1964, after leaving a self-explanatory note, Exh. A, which was admittedly written by accused Francisca Alimagno herself, which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Ako ho ay nagtanan kasama ko ay lalake.

Your Utusan’

complainant abandoned the house of her mistress and went with defendants Francisca Alimagno and Jovita Melo in a jeep, together with a man and a driver. They then proceeded to Barrio Putol, San Pablo City, where she was brought to a hut thereat and there allowed to be ravished by a man, whom she saw for the first time, after the latter had covered her month with a rag and tied her hands, so that she was rendered speechless and helpless from offering any resistance, so much so that he was able to satiate his lust with her until 12:00 o’clock midnight. Thereafter, she was brought by the man to the house of defendant Jovita Melo only to be transferred later to the house of defendant Francisca Alimagno, where she stayed for more or less three days until she was found there and taken back by Leovigildo Perez and Pita Alvero. The two thereafter brought her to the Police Department for the corresponding investigation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in convicting them of the crime of corruption of minor upon wholly unsubstantial and inherently conflicting evidence; (2) in not holding that the facts, as found by it and the trial court, do not constitute the crime of corruption of minors as defined and penalized by Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code; (3) in not holding that the minor referred to in Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code should be below 18 years of age; (4) in not holding that a person who is already corrupted can no longer be the victim of corruption of minors committed through abuse of authority or confidence; (5) in not acquitting the petitioners of the crime of corruption of minors; and, (6) in not holding that the penalty imposed upon petitioner Melo is incorrect.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Petitioners argue that they were convicted upon unsubstantial and inherently conflicting evidence. This contention is devoid of factual basis considering the findings of the Court of Appeals which are hereunder reproduced if only to demonstrate that the same were made after a thorough analysis of the evidence, and hence are beyond this Court’s power of review:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Appellants (herein petitioners) further contend that the lower court erred in not finding that even before November 29, 1964, the complainant Filomena de la Cruz was already a corrupted person and therefore she could no longer be the victim of the crime of "Corruption of Minors" penalized by Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code in view of the fact that from her own statement, Exh. 1, she admitted that she had sexual intercourse with other men.

"This argument is clearly untenable. Complainant, who does not know how to read and write vehemently denied the contents of Exh. 1, saying that it was not the statement she gave to the police. Indeed, she testified that previous to the incident, she did not have any coition with any man and the trial court so believed her. In any event, even assuming it to be true, Article 340 does not prescribe that the persons corrupted be of good reputation, as in the case of simple seduction under Article 338, much less that they be virgins, as in qualified seduction under Article 337, both of the Revised Penal Code. It follows that the above-mentioned traits are of no consequence. . .

x       x       x


"With regard to the letter (Exh. A), appellant Francisca Alimagno admitted having written the same out of pity to the complainant Filomena de la Cruz (tsn., p. 70, April 22, 1966). But, if she had nothing to do with complainant’s sexual adventure, it is strange why she wrote said letter, containing false averments, and then took the complainant away from the house of Pita Alvero, without the knowledge and consent of the latter. She, being a friend of Pita Alvero should have known that her actuation in writing the letter was ill-advised and morally wrong. Her admission that she wrote the same clearly indicates her plan to facilitate or promote the prostitution or corruption of the complainant.

"Appellant Francisca Alimagno testified that the witness for the prosecution Leovigildo Perez was demanding P5,000.00 from her and later was reduced to P2,000.00 (tsn. p. 83, April 22, 1966) to quash the case against her. On cross-examination, she (Francisca Alimagno) said that Perez was asking the aforesaid amount on the ground floor of the Secret Service Division. The pertinent portion of her testimony read, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q You stated that Leovigildo Perez asked P5,000.00 from you, can you tell where Leovigildo Perez asked P5,000.00 from you?

A At the ground floor, sir.

Q Are you referring to the Office of the Secret Service Division?

A At the ground floor but not within the office of the Secret Service Division.

Q Was that when you were called by the Secret Service men?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you immediately denounce Perez to the police what he was asking from you?

A No, sir.

Q Why did you not tell or report the matter to the police?

A Because we called up Atty. Alvero and asked him to assist us.

Q And you told Atty. Alvero that Leovigildo Perez was asking you P5,000.00?

A No, sir, he just told me go home.

Q In other words when Atty. Alvero arrived he just told you to go home?

A Yes, sir.’ (tsn., pp. 100-101, ibid.)

"If there is truth on the matter that Leovigildo Perez was extorting money from her (Francisca Alimagno) for the purpose of quashing the case, appellant Alimagno should have reported or denounced immediately to the police such attitude of Perez, inasmuch as they were near the office of the Secret Service Division or told the matter to Atty. Alvero, but she allegedly kept the matter to herself. The truth, however, is that it was appellant Alimagno who made an offer of P50.00 to Leovigildo Perez to drop the case against her. Thus, the pertinent portion of his (Perez) testimony reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘A The truth is that the spouses went to our residence and asked me to accept the amount of P50.00 and drop the case. I told them to ask the complainant, but the complainant refused and said that let the court decide the case.

x       x       x


Q In your answer you refer to the spouses, will you please specify whom you are referring to?

A The spouses, Alimagno, Sir.’ (tsn., pp. 145-146, June 1, 1966)

"The above-quoted testimony of Leovigildo Perez was strengthened by the testimony of Detective Sergeant Francisco Escondo, a disinterested witness for the prosecution who testified, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Q Will you please tell the conversation between you and the accused for the second time?

A They seek our service to help them in settling the case.

Q What was your answer?

A I told them, ‘its up to you.’ (tsn., pp. 14-15, June 7, 1965.)

"On cross-examination, the same witness further testified, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘A After Francisca Alimagno had talked with the complainant she requested us to help them to settle this case. (tsn., p. 22, Ibid.)

"It is clear from the foregoing testimony of both witnesses for the prosecution that the appellants made an offer of compromise for the settlement of the case. These overtures made by the appellants to have the case settled out of court are indicative of a guilty conscience and it is well-settled in this jurisdiction that an offer of compromise is an evidence of guilt. (People v. Manzano, CA-G.R. No. 00204-R, Nov. 29, 1962.)"

We find no reason in this case to depart from the rule which limits this Court’s appellate jurisdiction to review only errors of law "accepting as conclusive the factual findings of the lower court upon its own assessment of the evidence." (Evangelista v. Abad Santos, 51 SCRA 416.)

On the question raised that petitioners could not be guilty of the crime of corruption because the offended party is more than eighteen years of age at the time the alleged offense is committed, the point to consider is whether "under age" means below eighteen or twenty-one years old. Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any person who shall habitually or with abuse of authority or confidence, promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of persons under age to satisfy the lust of another, shall be punished by . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioners contend that in "crimes against chastity, like seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party and consented abduction, the age of the victim is pegged at below 18 years of age; . . . that the phrase ‘person under age’ (in Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code) was meant by the lawmakers to refer to persons below 18 years of age." (p. 61, Petitioner’s Brief.)chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We cannot subscribe to this view. Article 402 of the Civil Code provides that "majority commences upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years." When the lawmakers specifically provide "persons under age", instead of "below eighteen years of age", they could mean no other than that the offended party must be below 21 years old, and not below 18 years of age. The same is true in Acts of Lasciviousness in Article 336. White Slave Trade in Article 341, and Forcible Abduction in Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, where the age limit is not set at eighteen. Justice Ramon C. Aquino, in his commentary on the Revised Penal Code, page 1623, Book II, states that "Art. 340 was taken from art. 444 of the old Penal Code. The requisites of the crime of corruption of minors are that the accused acted habitually or with the abuse of authority or confidence; that he promoted or facilitated the prostitution or corruption of persons below 21 years of age and that he so acted in order to satisfy the lust of another." (Emphasis supplied).

However, We take note of the recommendation of the Solicitor General that with respect to petitioner Jovita Melo who was found guilty as accomplice in a consummated crime where the penalty is arresto mayor, medium and maximum periods (2 months and 1 day to 6 months), and where there is no modifying circumstances present, the penalty in its medium period should be imposed, or not less than 3 months and 11 days nor more than 4 months and 20 days. Otherwise stated, the petitioner Jovita Melo should suffer the penalty of 4 months and 20 days, instead of 6 months of arresto mayor.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

WHEREFORE, with the modification above indicated, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. With costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee (Chairman), J., took no part.




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






February-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-34105 February 4, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO CABURAL

    205 Phil. 450

  • G.R. No. L-37235 February 5, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO PORCARE

    205 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-24153 February 14, 1983 - TOMAS VELASCO v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS

    205 Phil. 480

  • G.R. No. L-30917 February 14, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE TABIAN

    205 Phil. 483

  • G.R. No. L-32106 February 14, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUINALDO REANA

    205 Phil. 494

  • G.R. No. L-41909 February 14, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASTOR PASCO

    205 Phil. 506

  • G.R. No. L-50296 February 14, 1983 - RICARDO ALZOSA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    205 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-58183 February 14, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO SALIENTE

    205 Phil. 526

  • G.R. Nos. L-52781 and 53658 February 16, 1983 - ANASTACIO C. GOMEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    205 Phil. 530

  • G.R. No. L-60174 February 16, 1983 - EDUARDO FELIPE v. HEIRS OF MAXIMO ALDON

    205 Phil. 537

  • G.R. No. L-41336 February 18, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO DISNEY

    205 Phil. 545

  • G.R. No. L-55988 February 18, 1983 - CECIL DIGMAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    205 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-61355 February 18, 1983 - MAXIMO G. RODRIGUEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

    205 Phil. 567

  • G.R. No. L-62753 February 18, 1983 - LWV MANAGEMENT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    205 Phil. 579

  • G.R. Nos. L-29479 & 29716 February 21, 1983 - CLARA E. VDA. DE SAYMAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    205 Phil. 581

  • G.R. No. L-34220 February 21, 1983 - HEIRS OF PEDRO GUMINPIN v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 590

  • G.R. No. L-36458 February 21, 1983 - FRANCISCA ALIMAGNO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    205 Phil. 602

  • G.R. No. L-41299 February 21, 1983 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 609

  • G.R. No. L-43008 February 21, 1983 - JUAN DE LOS SANTOS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    205 Phil. 635

  • G.R. No. L-49903 February 21, 1983 - MUNICIPALITY OF SANTIAGO, ISABELA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 638

  • G.R. Nos. L-55834-35 February 21, 1983 - ALEJANDRO MONTANER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    205 Phil. 650

  • G.R. No. L-59866 February 22, 1983 - ONOFRE D. MANALAD v. JESUS DE VEGA

    205 Phil. 653

  • G.R. No. L-61420-21 February 22, 1983 - JUAN HERNANDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 659

  • G.R. No. L-61998 February 22, 1983 - ROGELIO DE JESUS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    205 Phil. 663

  • G.R. No. L-55035 February 23, 1983 - GENARO CUBAR v. RAFEL T. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-56363 February 24, 1983 - MARCELINO OCHOCO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    205 Phil. 677

  • G.R. No. L-30666 February 25, 1983 - ANDRES ABAN v. MANUEL L. ENAGE

    205 Phil. 681

  • A.M. No. 1094 February 28, 1983 - PETRA SANTOS v. ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN, JR.

    205 Phil. 702

  • G.R. No. L-28554 February 28, 1983 - UNNO COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GENERAL MILLING CORP.

    205 Phil. 707

  • G.R. No. L-29119 February 28, 1983 - CO CHIN LENG v. CO CHIN TONG

    205 Phil. 716

  • G.R. No. L-30554 February 28, 1983 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. ARTEX DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.

    205 Phil. 722

  • G.R. No. L-32895 February 28, 1983 - EUSEBIO BABANTO v. MARIANO A. ZOSA

    205 Phil. 728

  • G.R. No. L-35241 February 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVILLANO VELASQUEZ

    205 Phil. 741

  • G.R. No. L-35872 February 28, 1983 - FERTILE MINES, INC v. FEVA MINING CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-39641 February 28, 1983 - METROPOL (BACOLOD) FINANCING & INVESTMENT CORP. v. SAMBOK MOTORS CO.

    205 Phil. 758

  • G.R. No. L-42282 February 28, 1983 - HERMENEGILDO R. ROSALES v. PEREGRIN YBOA

    205 Phil. 763

  • G.R. No. L-44674 February 28, 1983 - AVENUE ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    205 Phil. 770

  • G.R. No. L-50437 February 28, 1983 - SPOUSES GEORGE BARRAZA v. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR.

    205 Phil. 773

  • G.R. No. L-51263 February 28, 1983 - CRESENCIANO LEONARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 781

  • G.R. No. L-54070 February 28, 1983 - HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ZAMBALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-54083 February 28, 1983 - REYNALDO E. FEGURIN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    205 Phil. 801

  • G.R. No. L-55176 February 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON BERNAT

    205 Phil. 810

  • G.R. No. L-61083 February 28, 1983 - DANIEL GUSTILO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 818

  • G.R. No. L-62169 February 28, 1983 - MINDANAO PORTLAND CEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 821

  • G.R. No. L-62542 February 28, 1983 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 825