Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CHAPTER ONE
CASE DIGEST
PILAPIL V. SOMERA 174 SCRA 563
FACTS: The petitioner, Filipina citizen, Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, and private respondents Erich
Ekkehard Geiling, a German national, were married before the Registrar of Births,
Marriages, and Deaths in Germany on September 7, 1979. However, due to some
circumstances, the two got divorced on January 15, 1986 in Germany, after having a child
on April 20, 1980. The child was given under the custody of the petitioner. However, just
more than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, on June 27, 1986, the
private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the city of Manila, alleging that,
while still married to the petitioner, the latter had an affair with men named William Chia
and Jesus Chua in 1982 and 1983, respectively.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner be adjudged guilty of adultery even if she is no longer married to the
private respondent, when the case is filed after the divorce decree took effect and the act
alleged to the petitioner is committed while the two are still married.
DECISION: The private respondent, Erich Geiling, is no longer the husband of the petitioner. He has
no standing to sue the petitioner in the case since by virtue of the divorce decree filed in
Germany, which was honoured in Philippine court, the two got totally separated. Thus,
Geiling is no longer a husband of Pilapil, but rather, a private person. Under the law, it is
the offended spouse who should file the case, nobody else. But in this instance, it is not.
The court then decided to dismiss the case.
CHAPTER TWO
Section One
CASE DIGEST
PEOPLE v SANICO GR 208469
FACTS: The accused-appellant Samuel “Tiw-tiw” Sanico was convicted of one count of rape and acts
of lasciviousness by the Court of Appeals. Sanico now filed an appeal for certiorari in the
Supreme Court.
The accussed-appellant live near the house of the offended party AAA, where her (AAA)
mother, BBB, is a cook, and her father, CCC, is a “trisikad” driver. AAA was only more than
12 years of age, but under 13 at the time of the acts complained of were allegedly
committed by the accused-appellant. The offended party claims that the accused-appellant
raped her for several times, but she endured the harrowing experience in silence due to the
latter’s threat to kill her. Until on April 19, 2006, at around 1:00 p.m., AAA was napping in a
room with her niece. Just then, the accused-appellant entered the room, held AAA tightly,
pulled up her clothes, mashed her breast, and inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina despite
the repeated fighting of the latter. Her father, CCC, was just sleeping in another room at that
time, but out of fear, AAA kept quit. Being merely made up of woods, the house shook,
which caused CCC to woke-up, however, lost consciousness for a while when caught the
accused-appellant performing the lascivious acts against AAA. This gives the opportunity for
the accused-appellant to flee. According to the examination by Dr. Orais, medico-legal
officer, on AAA, the latter have suffered from sexual abuse and her hymen was lacerated.
On the other hand, the accused-appellant denies the allegation and claims that AAA, tries to
search the formers pocket for money while he was asleep on the sala of AAA’s house after
he and CCC drink. The accused-apellant, in turn, touched AAA’s chest and asked the latter
to remove her short pants, which she obeyed. As the accused-appellant was touching AAA’s
breast, CCC woke up from sleep and upon seeing what was taking place, CCC got a bolo to
hack the accused-appellant. However, the latter escaped. Sanico testified that he had never
inserted his penis on AAA’s vagina and only touched the victim’s chest because she initiated
it.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused-appellant raped AAA when the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the allegations against him.
DECISION: By taking the testimonies of the offended party truthful and sincere, the Supreme Court
affirm the CA’s verdict convicting the accussed-appellant of the charges against him of one
count of rape and acts of lasciviousness. The penalty, however, set by the CA, was modified
by the Supreme Court.
CASE DIGEST
A. PEOPLE V. FONTANILLA 23 SCRA 1227
FACTS: On or about September 1960, victim Fe Castro, aged 15 and virgin, was brought by her
mother to the house of the accused, Mariano Fontanilla and his second wife, Magdalena
Copio, sister of Fe’s mother, to serve as a helper. One night in September, just a week after
Fe arrived at their home, Fontanilla intruded into her bedroom and consummated the first
sexual intercourse. Prior to this, the accused had made amorous overtures and advances
towards the victim. The accused succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the victim
repeatedly for about three months from September to December. The accused made to her
during the day when his wife was away and at night when the latter was already asleep. Fe
repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of the accused, as she was induced by his promises
of marriage and frightened by his acts of intimidation. Their intimacies lasted for almost
three months until her aunt, the wife of the accused, caught them in flagrante on the kitchen
floor. The following day, the victim returned to her parents and revealed everything to her
mother. The accused denied all of these allegations because Fe locked her room at night
and during the day, he was out in the farm. In addition, the accused’s sexual capabilities had
waned considerably because he was already 52 years old at the time, thus the promise of
marriage is impossible.
ISSUE: The municipal trial court found the accused, Mariano Fontanilla guilty of qualified seduction.
Whether or not the verdict against him is true.
DECESION: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. It is settled that deceit,
although not need to be an element of qualified seduction, does not need to be proved or
established. Deceit is replaced by abuse of confidence. The seduction of a virgin over
twelve and under eighteen years of age, committed by any persons enumerated in Art 337,
“is constitutive of the crime of qualified seduction…even though no deceit intervenes or even
when such carnal knowledge was voluntary on the part of the virgin, because in such case,
the law takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral element of the said
crimes and punishes it with greater severity than it does the simple seduction……taking into
account the abuse of confidence on the part of the culprit, an abuse of confidence which
implies deceit or fraud”.
FACTS: Petitioner Eleuterio Perez was initially charged with consented abduction in the Court of First
Instance (CFI) of Pampanga. Perez plead not guilty, but the trial merits ensured and a
judgement of conviction was rendered against Perez. On appeal, the CA reversed and
acquitted Perez of the crime of consented abduction. However, subsequent to petitioner’s
acquittal, complainant Yolanda Mendoza filed another criminal complaint against Perez, but
this time, is for qualified seduction. The petitioner filed a motion to quash involving double
jeopardy.
ISSUE: Whether or not subsequent filing of the case in the form of qualified seduction after acquittal
to consented abduction constitutes double jeopardy.
DECESION: The Supreme Court said NO. In the case at bar, the issue posed by the petitioner
relates to the identity of the two offenses of consented abduction and qualified seduction.
While it is true that the two offenses for which the petitioner was charged arose from the
same facts, this, however, does not preclude the filing of another information against him if
from those two facts, two distinct elements arose.
A single act may be an offense against two statutes and if each statutes requires proof of an
additional fact, which the others does not, and acquittal or conviction under either statute
does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and conviction under the other. The plea of
double jeopardy cannot therefore be accorded merit, as the two indictments are perfectly
distinct in points of law, however, closely they may appear to be connected in fact.
ART. 339. ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender commits acts of lasciviousness/lewdness.
2. That the acts are committed upon a woman who is virgin or single or widow of good
reputation, under 18 yrs. of age but over 12, or a sister or descendant regardless of her
age or reputation.
3. That the offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence, relationship,
or deceit.
MALE CANNOT BE THE OFFENDED PARTY in this crime. Unlike in Art. 336, Art. 339 does
not mention “persons of either sex” as the offended party.
In order that the crime of acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party be
committed, it is necessary that the crime is committed under circumstances which would make
it qualified or simple seduction had there been sexual intercourse.
The phrase “with consent of the offended party” means the offended party may have
consented to the acts of lasciviousness being performed by the offender on her, but the
consent is obtained by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship by means of deceit.
ART. 336 compared to ART. 339
ART. 336. Acts of Lasciviousness ART. 339. Acts of lasciviousness
with the consent of the offended
party
The acts committed under The acts of lasciviousness are
circumstances which had there committed under the
been carnal knowledge, would circumstances which had there
amount to rape. been carnal knowledge, would
amount to either qualified or simple
seduction.
Both are acts of lasciviousness