Babanto vs.

Zosa

FACTS:
The victim, Leonida Dagohoy, a 13-year old girl of considerably low mentality,
was seated in the market when accused, Eusebio Babanto, a policeman,
approached and held her right hand and brought her to the ABC Hall. There was no
one in the ABC Hall and it was dark. When they arrived there, accused made her lie
down with her face upward. While in that position, accused lifted the girls dress
and removed her panty. The girl tried to kick him but he held her down. The
accused exposed his penis, laid down on top of the girl and commenced the sexual
act. Afterwards, he threatened to shoot her if she was going to tell her parents and
left. The girl felt pain in her vagina which emitted blood. She confided her ordeal to
her mother after the latter observed her to be weak and feverish. Initially, accused
was charged with rape but the RTC found him guilty of the lesser offense of
qualified seduction due to lack of violence or intimidation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting accused of qualified seduction.
RULING:
Yes.
RATIO:
The complaint alleged that the accused abused his position as a policeman,
that Leonida Dagohoy was of the tender age of 13, and that the accused had carnal
knowledge of the complainant. However, there is no allegation that the complainant
was a "virgin". It is true that virginity is presumed if the girl is over 12 and under
18 years of age, is unmarried and of good reputation. The presumption
notwithstanding, virginity is still an essential element of the crime of qualified
seduction and must be alleged in the complaint. A conviction for 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.
In the instant case, considering the age, mental abnormality, and deficiency
of the complainant plus the fact that the accused-petitioner was at the time of the
incident in uniform and with a side arm, there was sufficient intimidation to convict
for rape. The fact that the complainant kicked the accused- petitioner while the
latter was lifting her dress and removing her panty and that she cried afterwards
negate any consent on her part to the sexual intercourse.

Perez vs CA (1988)
FACTS:
On 21 October 1974, Yolanda Mendoza filed a criminal complaint for
Consented Abduction against petitioner Eleuterio Perez in the CFI of Pampanga Br.
VI for having sexual intercourse with her twice but reneged on his promise to marry
her. Subsequently, he was convicted for the same. On appeal, the CA reversed and
acquitted Perez of Consented Abduction. On 22 July 1983, the same complainant
charged Perez of Qualified Seduction in the MTC of Pampanga Br. VI. Perez filed a
motion to quash invoking double jeopardy and waiver and/or estoppel on the part
of complainant but was denied. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Following a series of unsuccessful judicial remedies, Perez filed a petition for review
as his last resort.
ISSUE:
Are Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction separate and distinct
offenses in that petitioner may not properly invoke the constitutional right against
double jeopardy?
RULING:
Yes. The very nature of these two offenses would negate any identity
between them as would make applicable the rule on double jeopardy.
RATIO:
It is true that the two offenses for which petitioner was charged arose from
the same facts. This, however, does not preclude the filing of another information
against him if from those facts, two distinct offenses, each requiring different
elements, arose. An examination of the elements of these two crimes would show
that although they may have arisen from the same set of facts, they are not
identical offenses as would make applicable the rule on double jeopardy.
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.