THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LAZARO EVANGELISTA AND ANDRES BANDILLO, DEFENDANTS. LAZARO EVANGELISTA, APPELLANT.

United States versus Evangelista

The Case

This is a criminal case from the early American period in Philippine law. The Government, through the public prosecutor, charged Lazaro Evangelista and Andres Bandillo with the crime of rapto, which is abduction, under the old Penal Code. The complaint alleged that the two men, taking advantage of the darkness of night and with abuse of confidence, abducted a young girl named Severina Flores from her dwelling, with her consent, she being over twelve and under eighteen years of age. The case matters to a reviewee because it fixes the elements of abduction with consent, distinguishes abduction from simple elopement, and shows how the Supreme Court treats the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of confidence.

Procedural History

The case was tried in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, with Judge Isidro Paredes presiding. At the close of trial, the court found Lazaro Evangelista guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him to four years and two months of prision correccional, with the accessory penalties of the law. He was also ordered to pay the offended party, Severina Flores, the sum of five hundred pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-half of the costs. The same court found the proof insufficient against Andres Bandillo and absolved him from all liability, with costs de oficio. From that sentence, Lazaro Evangelista appealed to the Supreme Court. The Attorney-General reviewed the evidence and recommended that the sentence be affirmed. The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, affirmed the sentence of the lower court, with costs.

Facts

In June 1913, Severina Flores, a girl fifteen years of age, was living in the house of her grandmother's sister, Juana Flores, in the municipality of Santa Cruz, Province of Laguna. Before that, she had lived in the house of the accused Lazaro Evangelista, being a niece of Evangelista's wife, but she was removed to her grandmother's house because of certain suspicious acts on the part of Evangelista. One day in March 1913, Evangelista and Severina were surprised lying down together and alone inside a concealed shack in a barrio of Santa Cruz, and this was reported to Severina's grandmother.

About midnight of the twenty-third of June 1913, Juana Flores awoke and found Severina missing. At about the same hour, a witness, Apolonio Flores, saw Severina passing along the road in the company of Lazaro Evangelista and Andres Bandillo. Asked where they were going, they replied that they were going to the barrio of Gatic. Instead, Evangelista and the girl boarded a small boat, a banca, which Bandillo, a boatman, had already prepared by order of Evangelista. They crossed Laguna de Bay to Jalajala, Province of Rizal, stayed in a house there for some time, then went by another banca to Binangonan in the same province. Throughout this time, Severina's father and relatives searched for her without success.

The defense tried to show that Severina had long maintained amorous relations with a certain Enrique Rojas, that it was Rojas who abducted her, and that Rojas and Severina later contracted a religious marriage in Manila. The trial court rejected this as false and manufactured. It found that it was Evangelista who maintained amorous relations with the girl, that it was Evangelista who accompanied her that night, traveled with her alone as though they were husband and wife, and slept with her in the houses where they lodged. The trial court held that the evidence proved the crime of abduction under Article 446 of the Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of confidence.

Issues

• Whether or not, under the facts proved during the trial, the accused Lazaro Evangelista is guilty of the crime of abduction with consent charged in the complaint.
• Whether or not the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence was sufficiently established by the evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Article 446 of the Penal Code, as applied by the trial court, defines and punishes the crime of abduction with consent:

El rapto de una doncella mayor de doce anos y menor de dieciocho, ejecutado con su anuencia, sera castigado con la pena de prision correccional en sus grados minimo y medio.

This is the provision under which Evangelista was convicted, and it requires that the taking of the maiden be executed with her consent but brought about by inducement or seduction on the part of the abductor.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the facts clearly show the defendant guilty of the crime charged. The trial court's finding that Severina was fifteen years of age was sustained, because her father so testified, and the Court held that the statements of parents are the best evidence of a child's age. The Court found that Severina was removed from the house where she was living in the middle of the night of June 23, 1913. Evangelista had contracted for a banca to carry him to Jalajala, and that same night he and Bandillo waited for Severina to leave her house and took her to the boat. The Court reasoned that the sole person interested in taking Severina from her home was Evangelista, and that her departure must be attributed to an appointment, an inducement, or an invitation on his part.

The defense cited decisions holding that where the initiative in leaving the home is taken by the woman herself, the crime is elopement and not abduction. The Court distinguished those cases, noting that in them the evidence positively and explicitly showed that the abducted person voluntarily left her home, while in this case there was no evidence that Severina left of her own free will. There was, on the other hand, circumstantial evidence that her abandonment of the home was the result of inducement or seduction by Evangelista. The Court therefore held that Evangelista committed the crime defined and punished by Article 446 of the Penal Code.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that nocturnity attended the commission of the crime, since nighttime was purposely sought. But the Court held that there was nothing in the record to justify the conclusion that there existed an abuse of confidence on the part of the defendant. The Court nevertheless affirmed the sentence, since the finding of guilt and the penalty imposed were fully justified.

Doctrine

Abduction with consent under Article 446 of the Penal Code requires that the taking of a maiden over twelve and under eighteen years of age be executed with her consent, but brought about by inducement, seduction, cajolery, or promises on the part of the abductor. Where the evidence shows that the woman herself voluntarily and by her own act abandoned her home to accompany her lover, the crime is simple elopement and not abduction. But where there is no proof that she left of her own free will, and circumstantial evidence shows that her departure was the result of inducement or seduction by the accused, the crime of abduction is established. The age of the victim may be established by the testimony of her parents, whose statements in regard thereto are the best evidence. Nocturnity is an aggravating circumstance when nighttime is purposely sought, but abuse of confidence must be supported by proof in the record and cannot be presumed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence of the lower court convicting Lazaro Evangelista of abduction, with costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that abduction with consent requires inducement or seduction by the abductor, and where the woman voluntarily leaves her home on her own initiative, the crime is elopement, not abduction. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between rapto and elopement, and to test whether an aggravating circumstance like abuse of confidence was actually proved in the record.