CONSENTED ABDUCTION

EXTRA INFO THAT MAY HELP BUILD THE CASE:

http://www.manilatimes.net/consented-abduction-girl-14-leaves-home-for-guy-23/243883/

A. CONSENTED ABDUCTION

ELEUTERIO PEREZ VS. CA G.R. 80838. (1988) (there is promise of marriage and sexual congress in
this case)

JURISPRUDENCE:

There are similar elements between Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction, namely: (1) that
the offended party is a virgin, and, (2) that she must be over twelve (12) and under eighteen (18)
years of age. However, two elements differentiate the two crimes. Consented Abduction, in addition
to the two common elements, requires that: (1) the taking away of the offended party must be with
her consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the offender, and, (2) the taking away of the offended
party must be with lewd designs. On the other hand, an information for Qualified Seduction also
requires that: (1) the crime be committed by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship, and, (2)
the offender has sexual intercourse with the woman.

Moreover, the very nature of these two offenses would negate any identity between them. As this
Court has stated:

the gravamen of the offense of the abduction of a woman with her own consent, who is still under
the control of her parents or guardians is "the alarm and perturbance to the parents and family" of
the abducted person, and the infringement of the rights of the parent or guardian. But in cases of
seduction, the gravamen of the offense is the wrong done the young woman who is seduced . . .
[U.S. v. Jayme, 24 Phil. 90, 94 (1913).]

PEOPLE VS NOEL LEE G.R. 139070 (2002)

JURISPRUDENCE:

In the crimes of qualified seduction or consented abduction, the offended party must be a "virgin,"
which is "presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation," or a "virtuous woman of good
reputation." The crime of simple seduction involves "the seduction of a woman who is single or a
widow of good reputation, over twelve but under eighteen years of age x x x." The burden of proof
that the complainant is a woman of good reputation lies in the prosecution, and the accused may
introduce evidence that the complainant is a woman of bad reputation.

B. SIMPLE SEDUCTION

BARRA VS PEOPLE GR L-32267-70 (1979)

JURISPRUDENCE:

The contention of the petitioner is meritorious.

Indeed, the four informations do not allege deceit which is essential in simple seduction. It is thus
clear that the trial court erred in convicting the accused of simple seduction upon the basis of the
four informations charging rape committed by means of force and intimidation.

PEOPLE VS AGAPITO YAP (1968)

JURISPRUDENCE:

it may be pointed out that in simple seduction, unlike that in a qualified case, the matter of
virginity of the offended party is not essential; it is only necessary that the complainant be an
unmarried woman and of chaste life and good reputation. Under the law, simple seduction is not
synonymous with loss of virginity; a widow can be the victim of seduction. 3 Upon the other hand,
the fact that there should be different acts of intercourse, consented by the woman in reliance upon
the same promise of marriage would not mean separate offenses of seduction, (cf. U.S. v. Salud, 10
Phil. 208). Nowhere in the information does it appear that every act of intercourse was the result of a
separate act of deceit.

C. “LEWD DESIGN”

BENITO SOMBILON JR. VS PEOPLE OF THE PH G.R. No. 175528 (2009)

JURISPRUDENCE:

In the case of Amployo v. People, the Court expounded on the definition of the term lewd, thus:
The term lewd is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is characterized by or
intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is
necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such
intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or
absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental
circumstances. What is or what is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into
a precise definition. As early as U.S. v. Gomez we had already lamented that

It would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just what conduct makes
one amenable to the provisions of article 439 of the Penal Code. What constitutes lewd or lascivious
conduct must be determined from the circumstances of each case. It may be quite easy to
determine in a particular case that certain acts are lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely
difficult in another case to say just where the line of demarcation lies between such conduct and
the amorous advances of an ardent lover.

As found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, petitioners acts of kissing the victim, fondling her
breasts and touching her private parts constitute lascivious conduct intended to quench his
salacious desire. Petitioners lewd intent was betrayed when he asked AAA, Dalaga ka na ba? as a
prelude to his lustful advances on the victim, and thereafter conveyed to her that I am single too. We
quote with approval the CAs ratiocination:

Undeniably, appellant committed lewd acts against AAA. Lewd is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent,
and lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity; or that which
is carried on a wanton manner. The evidence shows that appellant committed lewd acts against AAA
when he touched her all over her body which includes mashing her breasts, touching her private
parts, and kissing her on the cheek. These acts were clearly done with lewd designs as appellant
even previously asked AAA, as if it was a prelude for things to come, Dalaga ka na ba? and
thereafter conveyed to her that he is single too.

The fact that the victim tried to cover her body with her arms does not negate petitioners lascivious
conduct. Petitioner succeeded in fondling the victims breasts intense enough to cause multiple slight
contusions of bilateral breast areas.