Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

027 Phil 121:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 9059. March 14, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO, Defendant-Appellant.

Apolonio Carpena for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. SEDUCTION; PROMISE OR INDUCEMENT AS ESSENTIAL ELEMENT. — To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement, and the woman must yield because of the promise or other inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust, and the intercourse is from mutual desire, there is no seduction.

2. ID.; ID.; DECEIT. — The penalty for seduction prescribed in the third paragraph of article 443 of the Penal Code cannot be imposed unless it appears that the woman was induced to yield her body to the seducer "by means of deceit;" so that, where the deceit alleged is a promise of marriage, it must appear that the woman was induced to yield her body to the seducer "by means of" such promise, and that she surrendered her virtue in reliance upon its fulfillment.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The defendant and appellant in his case was convicted in the court below of the crime of seduction (estupro) and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four months, to pay the sum of P500 to the complaining witness Petronila Silverio by way of civil indemnification for the injury done her, to support the offspring of the illicit relations between the parties, if any there be, and to pay the costs of the trial.

The evidence of record conclusively establishes that the accused and young woman whom it is alleged he seduced were both employees of the Alhambra tobacco factory, and that friendly if not intimate relations had been established between them while at work in the factory; that an early hour on the morning of April 29, 1913, and long before the factory opened, they met in the street at a point some little distance from the factory, and almost immediately thereafter entered a street vehicle, which was called and hired by the accused; that they drove to the house of one Jacinto Rodriguez, a friend of the accused, who provided him with a room in which the couple stayed for about an hour; that during that period they had carnal relations with each other; that thereafter they had breakfast with the family of Rodriguez and later went to the factory, arriving there about 8 o’clock; that the young woman went to her home about 1 o’clock, and returned to the factory that afternoon, accompanied by her aunt and some ten or twelve other relatives and friends; that finding the accused the party demanded that he go at once to a minister and marry the girl; that despite some protest, the party compelled him to go with them; that the minister declined to marry the couple, it appearing from the cedula of the accused that he was a married man; and that thereafter these criminal proceedings were instituted at the instance of the young woman and her aunt.

The information charges that the accused induced the young woman to have sexual intercourse with him "by means of deceit, to wit, under promise of marriage." The only evidence of record in support of his allegation is the testimony of the young woman herself. In her first account of the incident she stated that the promises of marriage were made "while he was having intercourse with me," but later on in the course of her testimony, and in reply to a question as to whether the accused had made any promises on any other occasion, she said that he had also promised to marry her while they were in the street vehicle, on the way to the house of Jacinto Rodriguez.

We do not think that a conviction of the crime of estupro (seduction) can be sustained on this evidence. To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement, and the woman must yield because of the promise or other inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust, and there intercourse is from mutual desire, there is no seduction. (43 Cent. Digest, tit. Seduction, par. 56.) She must be induced to depart from the path of virtue by the use of some species of arts, persuasions, or wiles, which are calculated to have, and do have that effect, and which result in her ultimately submitting her person to the sexual embraces of her seducer. (People v. Smith, 132 Mich., 58.) The penalty prescribed in the third paragraph of article 443 of the Penal Code, which defines and penalizes this offense, cannot be imposed unless it appears that the alleged seduction was accomplished "by means of deceit." That is to say, of course, that the penalty cannot be imposed unless it appears that the 3 woman was induced to yield her body to the seducer by means of some deceit. Hence, where the deceit alleged is a promise of marriage, it must appear that the woman was induced to yield her body to the seducer by means of such promise, and that she surrendered he virtue in reliance upon it fulfillment. Manifestly a promise of marriage made after sexual intercourse has taken place, or after the woman has yielded her body to the man’s illicit embraces, cannot be held to have induced the woman to surrender her virtue. Nor can a promise of marriage made by a married man, where the woman knows that he is married before she surrender herself, be said to have induced her so to do; for in such a case it is clear that there was no reliance on the promise. And , indeed, it has frequently been held that in any case wherein it appears that the surrender of the woman was not made in reliance upon a a promise of marriage, a conviction of the crime of seduction cannot be sustained on the ground that such a promise had been made, though proof of a promise of marriage followed by carnal relations will generally be sufficient to sustain the inference that they were induced by such promise, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary. See many cases cited under Note 80, 35 Cyc., 1335.

In the case at bar the of the alleged promises of marriage is neither satisfactory nor convincing; and even if the testimony of the woman in this regard be accepted as true, it raises a grave doubt as to whether she was in fact induced to yield her body by means of the promises to which she testified. Upon her own testimony, the first promises of this nature were made after she had voluntarily, and of her own free will, gotten into the street vehicle. No satisfactory explanation of the conduce of the young woman, in accompanying the accused in the street vehicle, was offered at the trial, nor does one suggest itself at t his time, other than that she had already made up her mind to enter into illicit relations with the accused when she entered the vehicle. Having in mind the friendly if not amorous relations already existing between the couple; the early hour at which they met, long before the opening of the factory in which they were employed; the short discussion, promptly followed by the calling of a street vehicle; the ready acquiescence of the young woman in getting into the vehicle and driving to the house of a friend of the accused, where they evidently expected; and all that occurred thereafter; we are strongly inclined to believe that everything had been planned the night before, the early hour and the place of meeting having been selected and agreed upon so that the couple might consummate their amorous relations without fear of discovery by the young woman’s family. But however this may have been, we think that the weight of the evidence sustains a finding that the intercourse between the couple was induced by mutual desire, and that she had made up her mind to surrender herself to her lover before she got into the vehicle, and before the alleged promises were made by him, if indeed it be a fact that he made any such promises.

There is evidence in the record to the effect that she knew the accused was a married man, long before they had their illicit relations, and this evidence, though hardly sufficient to sustain an affirmative finding on this point, tends to confirm us in our doubt of the truth of her statement that she was induced to yield her virtue to the accused by the alleged promises of marriage.

Let judgment be entered reversing the judgment entered in the court below, and acquitting the defendant and appellant of the offense with which he is charged in the information, with the costs in both instances de officio.

Arellano C. J., Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 7657 March 6, 1914 - AMBROSIO TIEMPO v. VIUDA E HIJOS DE PLACIDO REYES

    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 8699 March 7, 1914 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 7352 March 15, 1914 - CATALINO HILLARO v. LA CONGREGACION DE SAN VICENTE DE PAUL

    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914

    ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHIBISHOP OF MANILA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 8937 March 21, 1914 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR AND CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING. CO. v. PEDRO N. MOJICA

    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323



  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978


  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 8375 March 30, 1914 - INTERISLAND EXPRESS CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447