Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1925 > December 1925 Decisions > G.R. No. 24507 December 28, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELEDONIO DE LA CRUZ

048 Phil 533:



[G.R. No. 24507. December 28, 1925. ]


Cecilio Lim and Clemente M. Zulueta for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ABDUCTION WITH CONSENT. — Where a man takes a female servant over 12 and below 18 years of age in an automobile with her consent and with the intention to bring her back, after riding for a couple of hours, to the place where he had taken her, the act does not constitute the crime of abduction with consent, for it does not show any intention on the part of the defendant to take her away from the authority of her master and substitute himself in lieu of the latter at least for a short time.



This is an appeal taken by Celedonio de la Cruz from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, finding him guilty, as principal, of the crime of abduction with rape, for having taken direct part in the commission thereof, and sentencing him to suffer seventeen years, four months and one day, reclusion, temporal, and to acknowledge and support the offspring, if any, with the accessory penalties of the law, and the costs of the action.

The appellant assigns three errors to the judgment of the lower court, which will be discussed hereinafter.

There is no question that the offended party, Toribia Minaos, a maiden 14 years old, when she went out in the evening to buy bread, spent the time chatting with the chauffeurs of the automobiles for hire that stopped at Gay Square in Iloilo. On the evening in question, the defendant Celedonio de la Cruz took her in his car, together with other passengers, to the municipality of San Miguel. After said other passengers had alighted, the defendant had a ride with the offended party in his car. At about 7 o’clock in the evening, the defendant stopped his automobile in an uninhabited place, and had sexual intercourse with her there After the perpetration of the act, the defendant returned with her to Iloilo and took her to the Eagle Cinematograph Theatre where he left her. Upon coming out, she was seen by the policeman Pedro Mallo, who was looking for her, and taken to the police station to which her absence had been reported.

The only question of fact to be decided in this appeal is whether the complainant was taken away through force and raped by the defendant, or he merely had a ride with her in his automobile wherein sexual intercourse took place with the consent of the girl. The testimony of the supposed abducted girl upon the first point is unworthy of belief. Gay Square is a public place, and it was impossible for the defendant to place her by force in his automobile without attracting the attention of the passersby and without the passengers of the car intervening, it not appearing that the latter were in connivance with the defendant. On the other hand, we find more credible the testimony of the defendant that there was an agreement between him and the complainant to ride in the car, as they did, thereafter getting back to Iloilo and entering the cinematograph theatre where they separated. As to the supposed rape, with the exception of the testimony of the offended party, there is nothing in the record to show that she did not consent to the carnal act, and taking into account all the circumstances of the case her uncorroborated testimony alone is not sufficient to convince the mind that she was raped. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the defendant and the offended party having agreed to ride in his automobile, the defendant took her, together with other passengers, to the municipality of San Miguel, where they had been riding around and had sexual intercourse, after which they returned to Iloilo and entered the Eagle Cinematograph Theatre where they separated.

This conclusion of fact being established, we proceed to determine the conclusion of law arising therefrom. Of course it is idle to inquire if the facts, as above found by us, may in law constitute the crime of abduction through force, with rape. Now then, may said facts constitute the crime of abduction with consent, defined and punished in article 446 of the Penal Code? "By abduction is meant," says Viada, "the taking away of a woman from her house, or the place where she may be found, to another, for the purpose of marrying, or corrupting her (libidinis causa)." The essential elements of the crime of abduction with consent are three: (1) The taking away of a maiden over 12 and below 18 years of age; (2) that the girl shall have consented to being taken away; and (3) that the act shall have been committed with lewd designs. In order that the taking away should constitute abduction with consent, it is necessary that the girl over 12 and below 18 years be taken away with her consent from the possession of the person having her under his authority and custody, in order to conceal her whereabouts for an appreciable period of time with lewd designs. The fact of the accused having taken Toribia Minaos in his automobile with her consent, and with intention to return her, after riding, to the place where he had taken her, does not show any intention to take her away from the authority of her master and substitute himself in lieu of the latter at least for a short period of time. The legislator well knows the frailty of the flesh and the ease with which a man, whose sense of dignity, honor and morality is not well cultivated, falls into temptation when alone with one of the fair sex toward whom he feels himself attracted. An occasion is so inducive to sin or crime that the saying "A fair booty makes many a thief" or "An open door may tempt a saint" has become general. Moralists constantly advise to avoid occasion to sin; and crimino-sociologists consider it as one of the causes of crime. Offenses of this nature may, and in fact do constitute a sin against morality, whether religious or social, but not a crime under the sanction of criminal law. A mere riding in an automobile with a girl over and below 18 years without intent to take her away from the authority of those who have her under their control and custody , nor to conceal her whereabouts, is not sufficient to constitute the conceal her whereabouts is not consent, whatever its consequences in morals may be. Criminal law does not punish mere amorous appointments, and in interpreting the laws, we cannot extend their effect beyond the limits fixed by their letter and spirit.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the facts proven at the trial are not sufficient to constitute the crime of adduction with consent, and the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed, and the defendant acquitted with the costs de oficio. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

December-1925 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 23760 December 2, 1925 - K. D. LAW v. JOAQUIN NATIVIDAD

    048 Phil 370


    048 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. 24915 December 2, 1925 - AGNETE E. NOBLE v. PEDRO TUASON, ET AL.

    048 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. 23894 December 3, 1925 - LEOCADIA DIMANLIG v. VICTORIA CUSI ET AL.

    048 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 23699 December 4, 1925 - JOSE L. RIVERA v. MAXIMO TRINIDAD

    048 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 23729 December 5, 1925 - FLAVIANA SAMSON v. VICENTE CORRALES TAN, ET AL.

    048 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 24125 December 5, 1925 - SOTERO P. FERMIN, ET AL. v. LEON PASE CARLOS

    048 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 23340 December 7, 1925 - TEODORA ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO

    048 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 23599 December 7, 1925 - PHILIPPINE ENG’G. CO. v. ANTONIO E. ARGOSINO

    049 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. 24066 December 9, 1925 - VALENTIN SUSI v. ANGELA RAZON, ET AL.

    048 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 23063 December 10, 1925 - J. F. OLIVER, ET AL. v. "LA VANGUARDIA, INC."cralaw virtua1aw library

    048 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 23716 December 11, 1925 - DIRECTOR. OF LANDS, ET AL. v. MANUEL SANTOS, ET AL.

    048 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 24532 December 11, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO BERSABAL

    048 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 23018 December 14, 1925 - LORENZO ZAYCO v. SALVADOR SERRA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 985

  • G.R. No. 24255 December 16, 1925 - AQUILES M. SAJO v. MERCEDES GUSTILO

    048 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 24322 December 16, 1925 - H. R. ANDREAS v. B. A. GREEN

    048 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 24486 December 16, 1925 - PHILIPPINE ENGINEERING CO. v. B. A. GREEN

    048 Phil 466

  • G.R. Nos. 24619 & 24620 December 16, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN NARGATAN

    048 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 24690 December 16, 1925 - SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD. v. DAVID E. ELLIS

    048 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 23979 December 18, 1925 - HUNTER, KERR & CO. v. SAMUEL MURRAY

    048 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 24566 December 18, 1925 - EMILIANO S. SAÑO v. MAMERTO QUINTANA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 23940 December 21, 1925 - PLACIDO ESCUDERO, ET AL. v. CORNELIO ESGUERRA

    048 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 24931 December 22, 1925 - LUIS MORALES v. MANUEL DE LEON

    048 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 24450 December 23, 1925 - BIAN HIN & CO. v. TAN BOMPING

    048 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. 24055 December 28, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO OSCAR

    048 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 24488 December 28, 1925 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. WALTER E. OLSEN & CO., INC., ET AL.

    048 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 24507 December 28, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELEDONIO DE LA CRUZ

    048 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 24366 December 31, 1925 - EUGENIO JACINTO, ET AL. v. CELERINO B. ARELLANO, ET AL.

    048 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 24433 December 31, 1925 - LEONOR WRIGHT DE DIOKNO, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA

    048 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 23610 December 31, 1925 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. JUAN ABRAHAM, JR.

    048 Phil 563