Article 333.

Who are guilty of adultery

Elements:

1. The woman is married;

2. She has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband;

3. As regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her
to be married.

 The essence of adultery is the violation of the marital vow.

 The gist of the crime is the danger of introducing spurious heirs into the
family.

 The offended party must be legally married to the offender at the time of
the criminal case.

 It is not necessary that there be a valid marriage between the offended

husband and the guilty wife. There is adultery even if the marriage of the
guilty wife is subsequently declared void.

 Carnal knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Direct proof

of carnal knowledge is not necessary to sustain a conviction.

 Each sexual intercourse constitutes a separate crime of adultery. Adultery

is NOT a continuing offense.

 Abandonment of the wife without justification is not an exempting

circumstance, but only mitigates the penalty. Both defendants are entitled
to this mitigating circumstance.

 A married man who is not liable for adultery because he did not know that
the woman was married, may be held liable for concubinage. If the
woman knew that the man was married, she may be held liable for
concubinage as well.

 The acquittal of one of the defendants does not operate as a cause for
acquittal of the other.

 If the paramour dies, the offended wife may still be prosecuted because
the requirement that both offenders should be included in the complaint
applies only when both offenders are alive.

 If the offended party dies, the proceedings must continue. This article
seeks to protect the honor and reputation not only of the living but of dead
persons as well.
  Pardon of the offended parties must come BEFORE the institution of the
criminal prosecution, and both offenders must be pardoned by the
offended party.

 Act of intercourse with the offending spouse subsequent to the adulterous

conduct is an implied pardon.

 An agreement to separate, while void under the law, may be used as

evidence to show consent by the husband to the infidelity of his wife.

Article 334. Concubinage

Acts punishable:

1. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;

2. Having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances;

3. Cohabiting with her in any other place.

Elements:

1. The man is married;

2. He is either –

a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;

b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman

who is not his wife; or

c. Cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in any other place;

3. As regards the woman, she knows that the man is married.

 Concubinage is a violation of the marital vow.

 A married man is NOT liable for concubinage for mere sexual relations
with a woman not his wife.
  ‘Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling’ – no positive proof of actual
intercourse necessary.

 Conjugal dwelling – the home of the husband and wife even if the wife
happens to be temporarily absent on any account.

 ‘Scandalous circumstances’ – any reprehensible word or deed that

offends public conscience, redounds to the detriment of the feelings of
honest persons, and gives occasion to the neighbors’ spiritual damage or
ruin. (this is essential only in concubinage of the second type)

 The people in the vicinity are the best witnesses to prove scandalous
circumstances.

 When spies are employed, there is no evidence of scandalous

circumstances.

 ‘cohabit’ – to dwell together, in the manner of husband and wife.

 Adultery is punished more severely than concubinage because of the

possible introduction of another man’s blood into the family, so that the
offended husband may have another man’s son bearing his name and
receiving support from him.

Beltran vs People (2000)

FACTS: Petitioner Meynardo Beltran and wife Charmaine E. Felix were married on June
16, 1973 at the Immaculate Concepcion Parish Church in Cubao, Quezon City. On
February 7, 1997, after twenty-four years of marriage and four children, petitioner filed a
petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36
of the Family Code before Branch 87 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The
case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-97-30192. In her Answer to the said petition,
petitioner's wife Charmaine Felix alleged that it was petitioner who abandoned the
conjugal home and lived with a certain woman named Milagros Salting. Charmaine
subsequently filed a criminal complaint for concubinage under Article 334 of the
Revised Penal Code against petitioner and his paramour. Petitioner contends that there
is a possibility that two conflicting decisions might result from the civil case for
annulment of marriage and the criminal case for concubinage. In the civil case, the trial
court might declare the marriage as valid by dismissing petitioner's complaint but in the
criminal case, the trial court might acquit petitioner because the evidence shows that his
marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

HELD: Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its
nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the competent courts and
only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long
as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists for all intents
and purposes. Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman not his wife before the judicial
declaration of nullity of the marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
concubinage.

Article 335. REPEALED BY R.A. 8353, ANTI-RAPE LAW OF 1997

Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness

Elements:

1. Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

2. The act is committed against a person of either sex;

3. It is done under any of the following circumstances:

a. By using force or intimidation;

b. When the offended party is deprived or reason of otherwise unconscious;

or

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented.

 Motive of lascivious acts is not important because the essence of

lewdness is in the very act itself.

 Embracing, kissing and holding a girl’s breast is an act of

lasciviousness, if the act was done with lewd designs.

 Example: if the kissing etc. was done inside church, absence of

lewd designs may be proven, and the crime is unjust vexation
only. But if the kissing was done in the house of a woman when
she was alone, the circumstances may prove the accused’s lewd
designs.

 Lover’s embraces and kisses are not acts of lasciviousness.

 The act of lasciviousness must be committed under any of the

circumstances mentioned in the definition of the crime of rape.

 There is no frustrated crime of acts of lasciviousness.

Offenses against Abuses against
chastity chastity

Committed by a Committed by a
private individual, public officer only
in most cases

Some actual act of Mere immoral or

lasciviousness indecent proposal
should have been made earnestly
executed by the and persistently is
offender sufficient

Acts of Attempted Rape

lasciviousness

Means of committing the crime are the

same

The offended party in both crimes is a

person of either sex

The performance of acts of lascivious

character is common to both crimes

Acts performed do Acts performed

not indicate that clearly indicate
the accused was that the accused’s
to lie with the purpose was to lie
offended party wit the offended
woman

Lascivious acts are Lascivious acts are

themselves the preparatory to the
final objective commission of
sought by the rape
offender

Acts of Unjust vexation

lasciviousness

The element of There is no motive

lewd designs of lewd designs
exists
People vs. Famularcano

Famularcano, a driver at the Camp John Hay, followed Dionisia after she alighted from
the truck. She took her by the waist, held her to his breast and private parts. She
resisted and was able to extricate herself. She then walked towards the house of her
friend, instead of going home.

When a complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed against him, Famularcano
claimed that he had no intention of having sexual intercourse with her. He did the acts
a s a revenge for what Dionisia’s father did to his wife.

HELD: The accused cannot be convicted of frustrated acts of lasciviousness for under
the very terms of the law such frustration can never take place. In cases of acts of
lasciviousness, as in all cases of crimes against chastity like adultery and rape, from the
moment the offender performs all the elements necessary for the existence of the
felony, he actually attains his purpose, and from that moment, all the essential elements
of the offense have also been accomplished. Motive of revenge is of no consequence
since the essence of lewdness is in the very act itself. He was convicted of
consummated acts of lasciviousness.

People v. Sailito Perez (2002)

FACTS: Sailito Perez y Gazo was charged with five counts of statutory rape against
Jobelyn Ramos his 11 year old niece. The accused interposed the defense of denial
and imputed ill-motive on the part of Jobelyn's mother which had led to the filing of the
criminal charges. The accused testified that during all the time that the incidents were
allegedly taking place, he was plying a tricycle to earn his living. The trial court
rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of the crime of Statutory Rape and guilty
of the offense of Acts of Lasciviousness.

HELD: The trial court correctly found appellant guilty of acts of lasciviousness. Appellant
was shrouded with lust in trying, although unsuccessfully, to get the young girl to suck
his penis.

The elements of this crime are that: (a) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness
or lewdness; (b) by using ford or intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious, or the offended party is under 12 years of age. In acts
of lasciviousness, the acts complained of are prompted by lust or lewd design where the
victim has not encouraged such acts. In cases of acts of lasciviousness, the offender is
deemed to have accomplished all the elements necessary for the existence of the
felony once he has been able, by his overt acts, to actually achieve or attain his
purpose.
Article 337. Qualified seduction

Acts punishable:

1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18 years of age by certain

persons, such as a person in authority, priest, teacher; and

Elements:

a. Offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and of

good reputation;

b. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;

c. Offender has sexual intercourse with her;

d. There is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the

offender.

2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her ascendant, regardless

of her age or reputation.

Person liable:

1. Those who abused their authority –

a. Person in public authority;

b. Guardian;

c. Teacher;

d. Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of

the woman seduced;

2. Those who abused confidence reposed in them -

a. Priest;

b. House servant;
 c. Domestic;

3. Those who abused their relationship -

a. Brother who seduced his sister;

b. Ascendant who seduced his descendant.

 Deceit is not an element of qualified seduction. Abuse of confidence is the

necessary element.

 The fact that the girl gave her consent to the sexual intercourse is not a
defense, because lack of consent is not an element of the offense.

 ‘domestic’ – a person usually living under the same roof, pertaining to the
same house

 Distinguished from rape: if any of the circumstances in the crime of rape

is present, the crime is not to be punished under this article

 In case of a teacher, it is not necessary that he be the teacher of the

offended party, as long as he is a teacher in the same school.

 Qualified seduction of a sister or descendant is punished by a penalty next

higher in degree. The age or reputation of the sister or descendant is
irrelevant.

 An accused charged with rape cannot be convicted of qualified seduction

under the same information.

People vs. Fontanilla

Fe Castro, a fifteen-year old virgin, was brought by her mother to the house of the
appellant and his second wife to serve as a helper. Fe Castro testified that during her
stay in the house of Fontanilla for about three months the accused succeeded in having
carnal knowledge of her repeatedly, the total number of times she could not recall. She
was certain, however, that the accused consummated the first sexual intercourse with
her one night in September. She also declared that prior to this incident, the accused
had made amorous overtures and advances toward her. Aside from giving her money,
the accused repeatedly promised to abandon his wife to live with her. Fe Castro
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 she returned to her parents, and revealed
everything to her mother two days later. Fontanilla denies everything.

HELD: It was qualified seduction. Anent the said marital promise, Fontanilla also claims
that there is no evidence on record supporting its veracity. Granting this to be correct, it
is nevertheless settled that deceit, although an essential element of ordinary or simple
seduction, does not need to be proved or established in a charge of qualified seduction.
It is replaced by abuse of confidence. When the offender is a public officer, a priest or
minister, a servant, domestic, tutor, teacher, or under any title is in charge of the
education or keeping of the offended woman, as in the present case, the act is
punishable although fraud or deceit may not have been used or, if employed, has not
been proved. The seduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age,
committed by any of the persons enumerated in Art. 337 "is constitutive of the crime of
qualified seduction . . . even though no deceit intervenes or even when such carnal
knowledge were voluntary on the part of the virgin, because in such a case, the law
takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral element of the said crime
and punishes it with greater severity than it does the simple seduction . . . taking into
account the abuse of confidence on the part of the agent (culprit), an abuse of
confidence which implies deceit or fraud."

Babanto vs. Zosa

Babanto, a policeman, brought Dagohoy, 13 years old and with low mentality, to the
ABC Hall where he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Babanto was
charged with rape but convicted of qualified seduction.

HELD: The complaint filed alleged that the accused abused his position as policeman
by having carnal knowledge of a 13 year old girl. However, there is no allegation that
the complainant was a virgin. Though it is true that virginity is presumed if the girl is
over 12 but under 18, unmarried and of good reputation, virginity is still an essential
element of the crime of qualified seduction and must be alleged in the complaint. A
conviction of the crime of qualified seduction without the allegation of virginity would
violate the petitioner’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. Petitioner is guilty of rape, consider the victim’s age, mental abnormality
and deficiency. There was also sufficient intimidation with the accused wearing his
uniform.

Perez vs. CA
Perez was able to have sexual intercourse with Mendoza twice after he promised
marriage to her. As he did not make good on said promises, Mendoza filed a complaint
for Consented Abduction. The trial court found that the acts constituted seduction, and
so it acquitted him on the charge of consented abduction. Mendoza then filed a
complaint for qualified seduction. Perez moved to quash on the grounds of double
jeopardy.

HELD: There are similar elements between Consented Abduction and Qualified
Seduction, namely: (1) the offended party is a virgin, and (2) over 12 but under 18 years
of age. However, there are other elements which differentiate the two crimes. For
example, consented abduction requires the taking away of the victim without her
consent, while qualified seduction requires that there be abuse of authority, confidence
or relationship. Thus, an acquittal for Consented Abduction will not preclude the filing of
a charge for Qualified Seduction, because the elements of the two crimes are different.

Article 338. Simple seduction

Elements:

1. Offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age;

2. She is of good reputation, single or widow;

3. Offender has sexual intercourse with her;

4. It is committed by means of deceit.

 Purpose of the law: To punish the seducer who by means of promise of

marriage, destroys the chastity of an unmarried female of previous chaste
character

 Virginity of the offended party is not required, good reputation is sufficient.

 Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise of marriage.

 What about unfulfilled promise of material things, i.e. the woman agrees to
intercourse with a man who promised to give her jewelry? This is not
seduction, because she is a woman of loose morals. (she is a high-class
prostitute!)

 Promise of marriage by a married man is not a deceit, if the woman knew

him to be married.
People vs Pascua (2003)

FACTS: Liza and Anna Paragas, 12 year old twins, were sexually molested by a
neighbor Hipolito Pascua. Upon learning what the Pascua had done to her daughters,
Leticia, their mother, confronted them. Liza and Anna revealed that Pascua had
sexually abused them. Leticia wasted no time in reporting the matter to their barangay
chairman and to the police before whom she filed criminal complaints. On appeal,
Pascua argued that he should only be liable for simple seduction.

HELD: Under Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code, to constitute seduction, there must
in all cases be some deceitful promise or inducement. The woman should have yielded
because of this promise or inducement. In this case, the appellant claims that the acts
of sexual intercourse with the private complainants were in exchange for money. He
declared that, prior to every sexual intercourse with Liza and Anna, he would promise
them P20. However, aside from his bare testimony, the appellant presented no proof
that private complainants' consent was secured by means of such promise. As aptly
opined by the trial court, the money given by the appellant to private complainants was
not intended to lure them to have sex with him. Rather, it was for the purpose of buying
their silence to ensure that nobody discovered his dastardly acts. The evidence for the
prosecution was more than enough to show that the element of voluntariness on the
part of private complainants was totally absent. Liza and Anna's respective testimonies
established that the appellant had sexual intercourse with them without their consent
and against their will.

Article 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party

Elements:

1. Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness;

2. The acts are committed upon a woman who is a virgin or single or widow
of good reputation, under 18 years of age but over 12 years, or a sister or
descendant, regardless of her reputation or age;

3. Offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence,

relationship, or deceit.

 A male cannot be the offended party in this crime.

  Even if the offended party consented, the offender is still liable
because the consent is obtained by abuse of confidence or
relationship, or by means of deceit.

 When the victim is under 12 years, the penalty shall be one

degree higher that that imposed by law.

Acts of Acts of
lasciviousness lasciviousness
(Art. 336)
(Art. 339)

Committed under Committed under

the circumstances circumstances
which, had there which, had there
been carnal been carnal
knowledge, would knowledge, would
amount to rape amount to either
qualified or simple
seduction

Article 340. Corruption of minors

Act punishable: The promotion or facilitation of the prostitution or corruption of persons

under age (minors), to satisfy the lust of ANOTHER

Who are liable: Any person. If the culprit is a public officer or employee, including
those in GOCCs, there is an additional penalty of temporary absolute disqualification

 It is not necessary that the unchaste acts shall have been done on the
minor. What the law punishes is the act of a pimp who facilitates the
corruption of minors, NOT the performance of unchaste acts upon the
minor.

 A mere proposal will consummate the offense.

 When the victim is under 12 years, the penalty is one degree higher

Article 341. White slave trade

Acts punishable:
In any manner or under any pretext,

1. Engaging in the business of prostitution;

2. Profiting by prostitution;

3. Enlisting the services of women for the purpose of prostitution.

 Habituality is not a necessary element of white slave trade. It is sufficient

that the accused has committed any of the acts in this article.

 ‘Under any pretext’ – one who engaged the services of a woman

ostensibly as a maid, but it reality for prostitution, is guilty under this
article.

 When the victim is under 12 years, the penalty shall be one degree higher.

Article 342. Forcible abduction

Elements:

1. The person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or
reputation;

2. The abduction is against her will;

3. The abduction is with lewd designs.

 Abduction – the taking away of a woman from her house or the place
where she may be for the purpose of carrying her to another place with
intent to marry or corrupt her

 Crimes against chastity where age and reputation are immaterial:

o Rape

o Acts of lasciviousness against the will or without the consent of

the offended party

o Qualified seduction of a sister/descendant

o Forcible abduction

 The taking away of the woman may be accomplished by means of deceit

first and then by means of violence and intimidation.
  If the female abducted is under 12 years of age, the crime is forcible
abduction, even if she voluntarily goes with her abducter.

 Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible abduction

 Where there are several defendants, it is enough that one of them had
lewd designs

 Husband cannot be found guilty of forcible abduction, as lewd design is

wanting. ???

 When there is deprivation of liberty and no lewd designs, the crime is

kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

 Attempt to rape is absorbed in the crime of forcible abduction, thus there is

no complex crime of forcible abduction with attempted rape (the attempt is
evidence of the lewd designs)

 Consummated rape may absorb forcible abduction if the main objective

was to rape the victim.

Forcible Corruption of
abduction minors

Purpose is to Purpose is to lend

effect his lewd the victim to illicit
designs on the intercourse with
victim others

Forcible Kidnapping (with

abduction with rape)
rape

The violent taking Not so motivated

of the woman is
motivated by lewd
designs

Crime against Crime against

chastity liberty

People vs. Sunpongco

Angeles was abducted from the jeepney by Silvestre Sunpongco with the aid of 3 men
and was brought to Hilltop Hotel where Silvestre succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her.

HELD. Article 344 of the RPC and the Rules on Criminal Procedure require that the
offenses of abduction and rape and other offenses which cannot be prosecuted de
oficio shall not be prosecuted except upon complaint filed by the offended party. In the
CAB, it is admitted that the sworn complaint of the victim was not formally offered in
evidence by the prosecution. This failure to adhere to the rules however is not fatal and
did not oust the court of its jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.

Jurisprudence reveals that if the complaint in a case which cannot be prosecuted de

oficio is forwarded to the trial court as part of the records of the preliminary investigation
of the case, the court can take judicial notice of the same without the necessity of its
formal introduction as evidence for the prosecution. The records of the case forwarded
to the CFI include the complaint filed by Juanita in the municipal court of Guiguinto
which conducted the preliminary investigation. Subject complaint was also marked as
an exhibit.

People vs. Jose

This is the Maggie DeLa Riva story (wherein Maggie was abducted and brought to the
Swanky Hotel, where the four accused each took turns in raping her)

HELD: While the first act of rape was being performed, the crime of forcible abduction
had already been consummated, so that each of the three succeeding crimes of the
same nature cannot legally be considered as still connected with the abduction. In
other words, they should be detached from, and considered independently of, that of
forcible abduction, and therefore, the former can no longer be complexed with the latter.

As regards therefore, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, the first of the
crimes committed, the latter is definitely the more serious crime. Hence, pursuant to
Article 48, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in the maximum period.
Consequently, the accused should suffer the extreme penalty of death. No need to
consider aggravating circumstances for the same would not alter the nature of the
penalty imposed.
People vs. Alburo

Alburo and 2 other men raped Evelyn Cantina. She was a jeepney passenger when
she was prevented from leaving the jeepney, taken to a remote place and was raped
there.

HELD: They are guilty of the complex crime of FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE.
In reviewing the evidence adduced by the prosecution for this crime of Rape, we have
likewise been guided by three well-known principles, namely, (1) that an accusation
of rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult for the
person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) that in view of the intrinsic
nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3)
that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weaknesses of the evidence for the
defense.

The factual milieu of this criminal charge before us gives us no reason to depart from
these established rules. On the contrary, we find that Appellant had taken Evelyn away
against her will, with lewd designs, subsequently forced her to submit to his lust and
rendering her unconscious in the process, thereby justifying his conviction for the
complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape under Article 48 in relation to Articles
335 and 342 of the Revised Penal Code, with which he has herein been charged.

People vs. Godines

Ancajas witnessed the killing of Vilaksi by the 2 accused. The accused, upon seeing
her with her baby, dragged her to a vacant lot where they took turns in raping her. Trial
court convicted them of the crime of rape.

HELD: TC correctly held that forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the
main objective of the accused is to rape the victim.

Forcible Abduction with rape

People v. Ablaneda (2001)

FACTS: On February 18, 1993, at around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, six-year old
Magdalena Salas was walking to school. Along the way, Jaime Ablaneda approached
her and asked if he could share her umbrella, since it was raining. He then boarded a
trimobile with Magdalena and brought her to a small hut. While inside, Ablaneda
removed his underwear and the child's panties. He applied cooking oil, which he had
bought earlier, on his organ and on Magdalena's. Then, he proceeded to have sexual
intercourse with the little girl.

When Magdalena arrived at their house, Ailene Villaflores, her uncle's sister-in-law,
noticed that she looked pale and weak, and found traces of blood on her dress.
Magdalena confessed that she was raped by a man who had a scar on the stomach. Dr.
Nilda Baylon, the Medico-Legal Officer who examined Magdalena, found that the latter's
hymen was completely lacerated, thus confirming that she had indeed been raped.

Ablaneda was charged before the RTC, with the complex crime of Forcible Abduction
with Rape. He was found guilty.

HELD: All the elements of forcible abduction are present in this case. The victim, who is
a woman, was taken against her will, as shown by the fact that she was intentionally
directed by accused-appellant to a vacant hut. At her tender age, Magdalena could not
be expected to physically resist considering that the lewd designs of accused-appellant
could not have been apparent to her at that time. The employment of deception suffices
to constitute the forcible taking, especially since the victim is an unsuspecting young
girl. Considering that it was raining, going to the hut was not unusual to Magdalena, as
probably the purpose was to seek shelter. Barrio girls are particularly prone to
deception. It is the taking advantage of their innocence that makes them easy culprits of
deceiving minds. Finally, the evidence shows that the taking of the young victim against
her will was effected in furtherance of lewd and unchaste designs. Such lewd designs in
forcible abduction is established by the actual rape of the victim.

People v Gerry Lining (2002)

FACTS: On October 4, 1997, Emelina Ornos, then fifteen (15) years old visited her aunt
Josephine to spend the night. While in her aunt's house, Emelina was invited by one
Sajer to a dance party to be held at the barangay basketball court. Emelina accepted
the invitation and at around seven o'clock in the evening of the same day, she went to
the party, accompanied by her aunt. Josephine then left Emelina at the party, telling her
that she had to go home but she would return later to fetch her.

Emelina decided to go home alone. On her way to her aunt's house, Emelina was
accosted by Gerry Lining and Lian Salvacion. Lining poked a kitchen knife at Emelina's
breast and the two held her hands. Emelina was dragged towards the ricefield and was
forcibly carried to an unoccupied house where she was raped by both men.

The next day, Gerry Selda, a friend of her father, saw her crying. She told him about the
rape incident and Selda accompanied her to the police. The Chief of Police immediately
ordered the arrest of Lining but Salvacion was able to escape. After trial, the court found
Gerry Lining guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of forcible abduction with
rape, and for another count of rape.
HELD: Accused-appellant could only be convicted for the crime of rape, instead of the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. Indeed, it would appear from the records
that the main objective of the accused when the victim was taken to the house of Mila
Salvacion was to rape her. Hence, forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape.

Article 343. Consented abduction

Elements:

1. Offended party is a virgin;

2. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;

3. Offender takes her away with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery;

4. The taking away is with lewd designs.

 Purpose of the law: to prescribe punishment for the disgrace to her family
and the alarm caused therein by the disappearance of one who is, by her
age and sex, susceptible to cajolery and deceit.

 If the virgin is under 12, the crime is forcible abduction. (because law
assumes that a person of such age cannot give consent, so this also
applies to those deprived of reason)

 The taking away of the girl need not be with some character of
permanence.

 When there was no solicitation or cajolery and no deceit and the girl
voluntarily went with the man, there is no crime committed even if they
had sexual intercourse.

Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction,

abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness.

Who may file complaint:

1. For adultery and concubinage – must be prosecuted upon complaint signed by

the offended person
 2. For seduction, abduction or acts of lasciviousness – must be prosecuted upon
complaint signed by

a. the offended party

b. her parents

c. her grandparents or

d. guardians, in the order in which they are named above.

 Reason why the crimes against chastity cannot be prosecuted de

oficio – offended woman might prefer to suffer the outrage in
silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial

Adultery and concubinage

 Offended party cannot institute criminal proceedings without including

BOTH guilty parties, if they are both alive.

 Offended party cannot institute criminal proceedings if he shall have

consented or pardoned the offenders.

 Pardon in adultery and concubinage must come before the institution of

the criminal action and both offenders must be pardoned by the offended
party if said pardon is to be effective.

 Consent – given before the adultery or concubinage was committed.

Example: agreement to live separately.

 Delay in the filing of the complaint does not indicate pardon.

Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness

 Offended party cannot institute criminal proceedings if the offender has

been EXPRESSLY pardoned by the offended party, or her parents,
grandparents or guardian.

 Pardon by the parent, grandparent or guardian must be accompanied by

the express pardon of the offended woman herself.

 The right to file action of the parents, grandparents and guardian shall be
exclusive of other persons and shall be exercised successively in the
order provided.

 When the offended party is a minor, her parents may file the complaint.
  When the offended party is of age and is in complete possession of her
mental or physical faculties, she alone can file the complaint.

 The guardian must be legally appointed by the court.

 Rape complexed with another crime against chastity need not be signed
by the offended woman, since rape is a public crime.

 When the evidence fails to prove a complex crime of rape with another
crime, and there is no complaint signed by the offended woman, the
accused cannot be convicted of rape.

 Marriage of the offender with the offended party in seduction, abduction,

acts of lasciviousness and rape, extinguishes criminal action or remits the
penalty already imposed.

 The marriage extinguishes the criminal action even as to co-principals,

accomplices and accessories of the crime.

 Marriage must be entered into in good faith and with the intent of fulfilling
the marital duties and obligations.

 Pardon must be given before the institution of criminal proceedings (bar to

prosecution). Marriage may take place after criminal proceedings have
commenced, or even after conviction (extinguishes criminal action and
remits penalty).

Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera

Geiling, a German, was able to obtain a decree of divorce in Germany against his wife
Pilapil, a Filipina. Five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, Geiling filed 2
complaints for adultery against Pilapil.

She challenged the complaint on the ground that the complainant, her husband, does
not qualify as an offended spouse having obtained a final divorce decree under his
national law prior to his filing the criminal complaint.

HELD: The crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes against chastity, cannot be
prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. It has
long since been established, with unwavering consistency, that compliance with this rule
is a jurisdictional, and not merely a formal, requirement. Now, the law specifically
provides that in prosecutions for adultery and concubinage the person who can legally
file the complaint should be the offended spouse, and nobody else. Unlike the offenses
of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, no provision is made for the
prosecution of the crimes of adultery and concubinage by the parents, grandparents or
guardian of the offended party. The so-called exclusive and successive rule in the
prosecution of the first four offenses do not apply to adultery and concubinage.

It necessarily follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity or legal
representation to do so at the time of the filing of the criminal action. Lack of legal
capacity to sue, as a ground for a motion to dismiss in civil cases, is determined as of
the filing of the complaint or petition.

Hence, with reference to adultery cases, the status of the complainant vis-à-vis the
accused must be determined as of the time the complaint was filed. The person who
initiates the adultery case must be an offended spouse, and by this is meant that HE IS
STILL MARRIED to the accused spouse, at the time of the filing of the complaint.

The divorce obtained by Geiling and its legal effects may be recognized in the Phils. In
view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons.
(Aliens of Filipino spouses may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the
Phils. if they are valid according to their national law._

Being no longer the husband of Pilapil, Geiling had no legal standing to commence the
adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed
the suit.

Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity

Civil liabilities of persons guilty of rape, seduction, or abduction:

1. To indemnify the offended woman;

2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law shall prevent him from so doing;

3. In every case to support the offspring

 The adulterer and concubine can be sentenced only to indemnify for

damages caused to the offended spouse.

 No civil liability of acts of lasciviousness under this article.

 Only indemnity is possible in adultery and concubinage because only

children born of parents who could marry at the time of conception may
 not be acknowledged. Support is also not possible because the person
who gives birth is one of the offenders.

 Moral damages may be recovered in seduction, abduction, rape or other

lascivious acts, as well as adultery and concubinage (Art. 2219, Civil
Code). The parents of the female seduced, raped or abused may also
recover moral damages.

 All offenders in multiple rape must support the offspring, as any one of
them may be the father.

 Under the Civil Code, judgment to recognize the offspring may only be
given if there is pregnancy within the period of conception, which is within
120 days from the commission of the offense (Article 283)

 In rape of a married woman, only indemnity is allowed. Defendant cannot

be sentenced to acknowledge the offspring, because the woman is
married. Support cannot also be given, because the offender cannot enter
periodically the house of the married woman to give such support. This
will cause disturbance to the family rights of the married couple.

Article 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians, teacher or other persons

entrusted with the custody of the offended party

Persons who cooperate as accomplices but are punished as principals in rape,

seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness etc (chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this title):

1. ascendants

2. guardians

3. curators

4. teachers

5. any other person, who cooperates as accomplice with abuse of confidence or

confidential relationship