THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DELFIN BAUTISTA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Bautista

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Delfin Bautista, a criminal prosecution for qualified seduction arising from the alleged sexual relations between a married physician and the housemaid in his service. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto: it fixes the age boundary of the crime of seduction with precision, and it demonstrates how the Court weighs the testimony of a complaining witness whose candor is doubtful. It is a lesson in both the elements of qualified seduction and the discipline of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Court of First Instance of Laguna, which found him guilty of qualified seduction. The trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of from eight months to one year and ten months of prision correccional, ordered him to indemnify the offended party Concordia Barquilla in the sum of 1,000 pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, ordered him to support the offspring named Trinidad Bautista, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the judgment on the evidence and the law.

Facts

Delfin Bautista, thirty years old and a Doctor of Medicine of San Pablo, Laguna, was a married man. He had contracted marriage in Vienna on December 12, 1937, with Josephine Petrack, by whom he had two children. After returning to the Philippines with his young wife in May 1938, he established his conjugal home at 20 Basa Street, San Pablo, in a three-story building: the third floor contained the bedroom, the second floor the living room, dining room, and kitchen, and the first floor his clinic and his father's office.

Concordia Barquilla, born on August 16, 1922, entered the service of Doctor Bautista as a housemaid in December 1938, after her parents had contracted an indebtedness with the accused's father. In October 1940, after she had reached the age of eighteen, and while still in the accused's service, she conceived, and on June 8, 1941, she gave birth to a baby girl whom she christened Trinidad Bautista. She left the accused's service on January 18, 1941, and shortly thereafter initiated this criminal prosecution.

Her complaint alleged that from May 1939 until January 1941, the accused, being a domestic and a person in charge of her care and custody, by means of deceit, trickery, and abuse of confidence and authority, had sexual intercourse with her, a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age, as a result of which she became pregnant. The prosecution's corroborating witness, Maria Veridiano, claimed to have seen the accused embracing the complainant in his bedroom in May 1939, yet she also testified that she entered his service only on October 12, 1939.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty of qualified seduction for carnal knowledge had with the complainant while she was a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age.
• Whether or not the carnal relations had after the complainant reached the age of eighteen may be treated as a continuation of the offense of seduction.
• Whether or not the evidence for the prosecution is sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

Applicable Provisions

Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code, on qualified seduction, provides:

Article 337. Qualified seduction. The seduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age, committed by any person in public authority, priest, house-servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

This is the crime charged, and its age element is decisive because the complainant must be under eighteen years of age at the time of the seduction.

The same article further provides:

Under the provisions of this chapter, seduction is committed when the offender has carnal knowledge of any of the persons and under the circumstances described herein.

This defines the actus reus of the offense as carnal knowledge under the circumstances described.

Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code, on simple seduction, provides:

Article 338. Simple seduction. The seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over twelve but under eighteen years of age, committed by means of deceit, shall be punished by arresto mayor.

This confirms that the statutory protection of seduction extends only to a woman under eighteen years of age.

Article 132 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 132. When the acknowledgment is made separately by the father or the mother, the name of the child's other parent shall not be revealed by the parent acknowledging it, nor shall any circumstance be mentioned by which such person might be recognized.

This bears on the case because the law shields the identity of the other parent in acknowledgment, reinforcing the bar on judicial inquiry into paternity.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court clarified that the complaint embraces two distinct periods: from May 1939 to August 15, 1940, when the complainant was under eighteen, and from August 16, 1940 to January 1941, when she was over eighteen. Only proof of cohabitation during the first period could be considered, because under the law the complainant could not be the object of seduction after she had reached eighteen. The Court held that the loss of virginity during minority consummates the offense, and that the virginity of one cannot be lost twice.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that the later carnal relations were a continuation of the offense. It held that there is no such thing as a continuing offense or a continuation of the offense of seduction, and that cohabitation with a woman during her majority, whether for the first or a subsequent time, cannot and does not constitute an offense under the law in question.

On the third issue, the Court examined the evidence for the first period and found it insufficient. It noted the apparent lack of candor of the complainant and the manifest inherent incredibility of the testimony of Maria Veridiano. The complainant's testimony was exaggerated, self-contradictory, and evasive: she gave conflicting accounts of the first encounter, of whether she held a baby or a milk bottle, and of her reasons for submitting, and she admitted withholding vital facts on her lawyer's instruction. The Court held that the testimony of a witness previously instructed as to what to say and what not to say, and who admits having obeyed such instruction, cannot be relied upon. As to Maria Veridiano, the Court found her testimony inherently incredible, since she claimed to have witnessed acts in May 1939 although she entered the service only in October 1939, and her claimed purpose of getting rice and a coffee pot from the bedroom was manifestly false.

Doctrine

Qualified seduction under Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the woman seduced be a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age. The age of the offended party at the time of the carnal knowledge is an essential element, and carnal relations had after she reaches eighteen are outside the pale of the law. There is no continuing offense of seduction: the loss of virginity during minority consummates the crime, and the virginity of one cannot be lost twice. Proof of cohabitation during majority cannot be considered to establish the offense, and the paternity of the resulting offspring cannot be the subject of judicial inquiry. Finally, the testimony of a witness who admits having been instructed what to say and what not to say, and who appears exaggerated, self-contradictory, and evasive, cannot be relied upon as a basis for conviction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused, on the ground that the evidence for the prosecution was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that there is no continuing offense of seduction, and the virginity of one cannot be lost twice. Examiners use this case to test the age element of qualified seduction and the rule that carnal relations during majority cannot be considered to establish the crime.