G.R. No. 27972 - OCTOBER 1927 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 27972October 31, 1927 People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Santiago G.R. No. 22635October 29, 1927 Government of the United States of America vs. Judge of the Court of the First Instance of Pampanga, et al. G.R. No. 26743October 19, 1927 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Fidelity & Surety Company of the Philippines G.R. No. 26943-26946October 15, 1927 Fermin Licad, et al. vs. Natalia Bacani, et al. Natalia Bacani, et al. vs. Fermin Licad, et al. Enrique Bernia vs. Fermin Licad, et al. Natalia Bacani vs. Fermin Licad, et al. G.R. No. 26757October 11, 1927 People of the Philippines vs. Cirilo Sandal G.R. No. 22390October 11, 1927 Government of the Philippines vs. Miguel J. Ossorio G.R. No. 27498 and 27499October 10, 1927 In re Marcelino Tongco Josefa Tongco vs. Anastacia Vianzon Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Marcelino Tongco, et al. G.R. No. 27124October 10, 1927 Sebastian Felices, et al. vs. Anacleta Madrilejos, et al. G.R. No. 27296October 8, 1927 Intestate Estate of Jose B. Banzon Trinidad Gonzales vs. Mariano B. Banzon, et al. G.R. No. 26948 and 26949October 8, 1927 Silvestra Baron vs. Pablo David Guillermo Baron vs. Pablo David G.R. No. 27420-27421October 5, 1927 People of the Philippines vs. Faustino Geralde G.R. No. 27014October 5, 1927 Paulina Cristobal, et al. vs. Marcelino Gomez G.R. No. 26937October 5, 1927 Philippine National Bank vs. Severo Eugenio Lo, et al. G.R. No. 28151October 3, 1927 Director of Lands, et al. vs. Eduardo Gutierrez David, et al. G.R. No. 27116October 3, 1927 Abdon Hosana vs. Balbino Diomano, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Santiago Government of the United States of America vs. Judge of the Court of the First Instance of Pampanga, et al. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Fidelity & Surety Company of the Philippines Fermin Licad, et al. vs. Natalia Bacani, et al. Natalia Bacani, et al. vs. Fermin Licad, et al. Enrique Bernia vs. Fermin Licad, et al. Natalia Bacani vs. Fermin Licad, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Cirilo Sandal Government of the Philippines vs. Miguel J. Ossorio In re Marcelino Tongco Josefa Tongco vs. Anastacia Vianzon Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Marcelino Tongco, et al. Sebastian Felices, et al. vs. Anacleta Madrilejos, et al. Intestate Estate of Jose B. Banzon Trinidad Gonzales vs. Mariano B. Banzon, et al. Silvestra Baron vs. Pablo David Guillermo Baron vs. Pablo David People of the Philippines vs. Faustino Geralde Paulina Cristobal, et al. vs. Marcelino Gomez Philippine National Bank vs. Severo Eugenio Lo, et al. Director of Lands, et al. vs. Eduardo Gutierrez David, et al. Abdon Hosana vs. Balbino Diomano, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 27972             October 31, 1927

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FELIPE SANTIAGO,defendant-appellant.

Fausto C. Cuizon for appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

STREET,J.:

This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Nueva Ecija, finding the appellant, Felipe Santiago, guilty of the offense of rape and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for fourteen years, eight months and one day,reclusion temporal, with the accessories prescribed by law, requiring him to endow the offended party, Felicita Masilang, in the amount of P500, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, requiring him also to recognize and maintain, at P15 per month, the offspring, if there should be any, as consequence of the rape, and requiring him further to pay the costs.

The deceased wife of the appellant was the aunt of Felicita Masilang, aged 18, who was the injured girl in this case. She is therefore appellant's niece by marriage, and she calls him uncle. Both are residents of the municipality of Gapan, in the Province of Nueva Ecija. On November 23, 1926, the appellant asked Felicita, who was them about 18 years of age, to accompany him across the river on some errand. The girl agreed and they went over the river together into the municipality of San Leonardo. After crossing the river, the appellant conducted the girl to a place about twenty paces from the highway where tall grass and other growth hid them public view. In this spot the appellant manifested a desire to have sexual intercourse with the girl, but she refused to give her consent, and he finally notwithstanding her resistance, accomplished his purpose by force and against her will.

After the deed had been done the appellant conducted the girl to the house of his uncle, Agaton Santiago, who lived not far away. They arrived here about 11 a. m., and remained for several hours. In the course of the afternoon Agaton Santiago brought in a protestant minister who went through the ceremony of marrying the couple. After this was over the appellant gave the girl a few pesos and sent her home. Her father happened to be away that night, but upon his return the next day, she told him what had happened, a this prosecution for rape was started.

The trial court found that the offense of rape had been committed, as above stated, and the marriage ceremony was a mere ruse by which the appellant hoped to escape from the criminal consequences of his act. We concur in this view of the case. The manner in which the appellant death with the girl after the marriage, as well as before, shows that he had nobona fideintention of making her his wife, and the ceremony cannot be considered binding on her because of duress. The marriage was therefore void for lack of essential consent, and it supplies no impediment to the prosecution of the wrongdoer.

The Attorney-General suggest that, in fixing the penalty, it would be proper to take into account the aggravating circumstance that the offense was committed in an uninhabited place. But the evidence fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that crime was committeden despoblado. The incident occurred only a few paces from the Manila North Road, and it appears that there was an unoccupied house nearby to which the girl was taken and where food was procured from Florentina Cuizon who lived not far away. It is the constant doctrine of the court that an aggravating circumstance must be as clearly proved as any other element of the crime (U. S.vs. Binayoh, 35 Phil., 23, 31; Albert, Law on Crimes, pp. 88-89); and we cannot feel certain, upon the proof before us, that the place of the commission of this offense was remote enough from habitation or possible aid to make appropriate the estimation of the aggravating circumstance referred to.1awph!l.net

The judgment appealed from is in accordance with law, and will be affirmed. So ordered, with costs against the appellant.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.