US v. Santiago
G.R. No. L-11374
1 of 9
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-11374
March 14, 1917
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. JULIAN SANTIAGO, defendant- appellant.
Delgado and Delgado for appellant. Attorney-General Avanceña Avanceña for appellee. ARAULLO, J.
This case was instituted in the Court of irst !nstance of Bataan a"ainst the accused #ulian $antia"o for the cri%e of seduction, b& virtue of a co%plaint co %plaint filed b& Mariano $iasat. The co%plaint as a%ended as a s follows' The undersi"ned accuses #ulian $antia"o of the cri%e of seduction co%%itted as follows' That fro% the %onth of #ul& till Nove%ber, ()(*, in the %unicipalit& of $a%al, Province of Bataan, P.!., and within the +urisdiction of this court, the said accused, as Ro%an apostolic priest and parish priest of $a%al, Bataan, and the confessor of Eufrasia $iasat, did, then the there, wilfull& unlawfull&, and cri%inall&, b& %eans of deceit and pro%ise of %arria"e, seduce, and a nd succeed in l&in" several ti%es with %& dau"hter dau" hter na%ed Eufrasia $iasat, a vir"in ( &ears old. Co%%itted in violation of law. The defendant pleaded not "uilt&. The trial was had and the evidence on the part of the prosecution and that of the defense havin" been adduced, +ud"%ent was rendered b& said trial court on Au"ust , ()(, findin" the accused "uilt& of the cri%e of seduction provided for an penali/ed in para"raph ( of article ** of the Penal Code, without the concurrence of an& circu%stance which %a %odif& the liabilit& incurred, and sentencin" the said accused to the penalt& of one &ear, ei"ht %onths, and twent&-one da&s of prision correccional and its accessories, to inde%nif& the offended part& in the a%ount of pesos 00, or to suffer, in case of insolvenc&, the correspondin" subsidiar& i%prison%en i%pri son%ent, t, and to pa& the costs. ro% this +ud"%ent, +ud"%ent, the defendant appealed appealed to this court and assi" assi"ned ned as the first error the fact that the trial court overruled the second "round for the de%urrer interposed b& his counsel to the co%plaint. The said second "round for the de%urrer consisted, accordin" to the counsel for the defense, in that the co%plaint alle"ed two distinct cri%es or i%puted to the accused accu sed %ore than one offense. A readin" of the co%plaint in sufficient to convince us that said "round for the de%urrer is unfounded. !t was alle"ed in the co%plaint that the accused, as Ro%an apostolic priest and the confessor of Eufrasia $iasat, a vir"in, ( &ears old, wilfull&, unlawfull&, and cri%inall& seduced the said "irl and succeeded in l&in" with her several ti%es durin" the period coverin" the %onths of #ul& to Nove%ber ()(*, that is, the co%plaint char"ed the accused with the cri%e of 1ualified seduction which is defined and punished in para"raph (2 of article ** of the Penal Code. !t is true that in the sa%e co%plaint, before the words 3seduce and succeed in l&in",3 there appears the phrase 3b& %eans of deceit and pro%ise of %arria"e,3 and fro% this fact, counsel for the defense concluded that in the co%plaint #ulian $antia"o was also accused of the cri%e of si%ple seduction, as defined and penali/ed in the
US v. Santiago
G.R. No. L-11374
2 of 9
penulti%ate para"raph of article ** above-cited. !t is to be ta4en into account, however, that deceit of fraud, as e5pressed b& 6iada in his co%%entaries on the Penal Code, is what characteri/es, seduction, as a "eneral rule, and the supre%e court of $pain in various decisions have held that the characteristic circu%stance of the offense of estupro is the seduction or deceit. 7ence, in usin" the phrase 3b& %eans of deceit and pro%ise of %arria"e3 in the co%plaint, no other thin" is %ade than to %ention in it said characteristic circu%stance and one of the %eans which the accused e%plo&ed in effectin" the deceit, and the co%plainant did not intend to accuse #ulian $antia"o of a cri%e different fro% that which appears to have been reall& %entioned in the co%plaint, that is, that a 1ualified seduction, because, in said co%plaint it is clearl& stated that #ulian $antia"o, when he succeeded in l&in" with Eufrasia $iasat, was a Ro%an Catholic priest and the confessor of the said "irl. Precisel&, the e5press %ention %ade in the co%plaint of such a condition which concurred in the accused, althou"h in such co%plaint the words 3b& %eans of deceit and pro%ise of %arria"e' were used, does not %a4e one understand that the co%plaint also accused #ulian $antia"o of the cri%e of si%ple seduction to which the penulti%ate para"raph of the said article ** refer, because this cri%e is co%%itted b& an& other person in who% does not concur an& of the conditions enu%erated in para"raph ( of the sa%e article. !t is li4ewise true that the carnal 4nowled"e of an& of the person in who% concurs an& of the conditions enu%erated in para"raph ( of the said article ** with a vir"in over (2 and less than (8 &ears of a"e, accordin" to Act No. 22)8 of the Philippine 9e"islature which a%ends the said le"al provision, is constitutive of the cri%e of 1ualified seduction, penali/ed b& the said para"raph of the said article even thou"h no deceit intervenes or event when such carnal 4nowled"e were voluntar& on the part of the vir"in, because in such a case, the law ta4es for "ranted the e5istence of the deceit as an inte"ral ele%ent of the said cri%e and punishes it with "reater severit& than it does the si%ple seduction referred to in the penulti%ate para"raph of the sa%e article, ta4in" into account the abuse of confidence on the part of the a"ent, an abuse of confidence which i%plies deceit or fraud. The words 3b& %eans of deceit and pro%ise of %arria"e' used in the co%plaint in 1uestion can not have the effect of var&in" the 1ualification of the cri%e char"ed, inas%uch as in the co%plaint it was e5pressl& stated that the carnal 4nowled"e was had between #ulian $antia"o, ro%an apostolic priest, and the "irl Eufrasia $iasat, a vir"in ( &ears old, and %uch less can those words have the effect of accusin" the sa%e #ulian $antia"o of the cri%e of si%ple seduction, that is, of two cri%es punished with different penalties. $aid words can be considered as a redundanc& in the co%plaint, or in other words as %ere surplusa"e, for the reason, as has been stated in spea4in" of the cri%e of 1ualified seduction, that the law does not re1uire that there should be deceit on the part of the a"ent in order that he %a& be punished as "uilt& of the said cri%e. Mere surplusa"e will not vitiate an indict%ent which contains sufficient %atter to char"e a cri%e. An unnecessar& aver%ent %a& be considered surplusa"e and re+ected, as %a& be a defective but i%%aterial aver%ent, and a fact stated %a& be re+ected as surplusa"e if it be %erel& in a""ravation, so that it %a& be stric4en out and &et leave the offense full& describes. . . . :Rulin" Case 9aw, volu%e (*, par. ;, pa"e ()( and the cases therein cited.< 555
555
555
Mere surplusa"e does not a%ount to duplicit&, and where a count char"es one offense, and defectivel& char"es another, the latter char"e %a& be re+ected as surplusa"e. . . . :Rulin" Case 9aw, volu%e (*, par. *0 pa"e (), and the cases therein cited.< !t can not therefore be held, that in the co%plaint in 1uestion two cri%es are char"ed and that the phrase used in the said co%plaint, 3b& %eans of deceit and pro%ise of %arria"e,3 which can be considered as superfluous because in
US v. Santiago
G.R. No. L-11374
3 of 9
the co%plaint #ulian $antia"o is accused of the cri%e of 1ualified seduction, has vitiated the co%plaint with a nullit&, and that the lower court has co%%itted an error in overrulin" the second "round of the de%urrer interposed to the said co%plaint b& the counsel for the defense. The other errors assi"ned b& the counsel for the defense in his brief, and which errors he clai%s to have been co%%itted b& the lower court, refer to the ad%ission of certain evidence, the findin" of facts, and the penalt& i%posed upon the accused as author of the cri%e of 1ualified seduction, defined and penali/ed in the above-cited para"raph ( of article ** of the Penal Code, in accordance with evidence adduced a t the trial. =pon a careful e5a%ination of the said evidence, we find it, in the first place, to have been proven in a %anner be&ond peradventure of a doubt, as the accused hi%self has so declared and the docu%ents e5hibited at the trial so show, that the said accused was a priest of the Ro%an Catholic Apostolic Church fro% March (, ()(, when he received the priesthood order fro% the authorit& of the Most !llustrious Archbishop of Manila, Metropolitan of the Philippines !slands, and that havin" been appointed parish pries of $a%al, Province of Bataan, on $epte%ber 2;, ()(, he too4 possession of the %inistr& on the first da& of >ctober of the sa%e &ear, and re%ained as such resident parish priest in said town till #anuar& 22, ()(. The followin" facts have also been proven be&ond all doubt' That Mariano $iasat, a resident of the town of $a%al professed the Ro%an Catholic Apostolic reli"ion as also his dau"hters one of who% is Eufrasia, a vir"in ( &ears of a"e? that the latter who occasionall& devoted herself to the practices of the said reli"ion, a%on" which was that of the confession, went to the Catholic church of the town one afternoon in #une, ()(*, to confess to the accused parish priest #ulian $antia"o, and as the priest could not be found in the church, as was usuall& the case, she was obli"ed to "o up to the convent to as4 for the priest. @hile the "irl was thus in the presence of said priest, the latter tried to in"ratiate hi%self to her, sa&in" that he loved her ver& %uch, because she was beautiful? e%braced and 4issed her, sa&in" that he was +ust as %uch a %an as the other and that he could strip hi%self of his ecclesiastical robe and %arr& her. These acts and words of the parish priest, producin" in the "irl the natural surprise and confusion, did not per%it her to sa& a word? instead, she was obli"ed to return ho%e i%%ediatel&. $o%e da&s later, she went a"ain to the church to confess, and while she was there alone the accused arrived. The accused then too4 her hand, e%braced and 4issed her, and, in spite of her resistance, too4 her to a roo% called a storeroo% under the convent, at a certain distance fro% the confessional. The "irl did not persist in her resistance in a %ore ener"etic %anner than she had done, because she feared the scandal and the sha%e which would befall the%, as the accused so warned her, should the& be cau"ht in that place? and while the& were thus in the storeroo%, the said accused, swearin" that he never would for"et her and pro%isin" to %arr& her, %ade her lie on a board on the floor and had se5ual intercourse with her. since then, there had e5isted inti%ate relations between the accused and the "irl, Eufrasia $iasat, the two havin" had on various occasions carnal 4nowled"e, once in the sa%e convent the thrice, in the ver& roo% of the "irl in the house of her parents in the said town of $a%al, and durin" the ni"ht while the in%ates of the house were sleepin", into which house the accused cli%bed throu"h the window of the "irls apart%ent. These relations lasted till the last da&s of Nove%ber of the sa%e &ear ()(*, because, Eufrasias father havin" observed a chan"e in his dau"hters %anner of bein" :as he so put it<, succeeded in discoverin" in her possession certain letters of the accused addressed to her, the readin" of which convinced hi% of the e5istence of said relation. A%on" said letters, one which was presented at the trial as E5hibit B was written b& 9eon 9ope/, the parish priest of inalupihan, a town near $a%al, in which letter the writer called the "irl, Eufrasia $iasat, "comadre" and, referrin" to the accused, called hi% the husband of the "irl, and offered hi%self to be the "odfather of the child which the accused and the "irl would have. !n view of these facts, Mariano $iasat presented, so%e da&s later or on ece%ber 8th of the sa%e &ear, a co%plaint in the +ustice of the peace court of $a%al, char"in" the accused with the cri%e of seduction, which co%plaint was reiterated in the Court of irst !nstance after the
US v. Santiago
G.R. No. L-11374
4 of 9
preli%inar& investi"ation was held, and a%ended later in the %anner shown at the be"innin" of this decision. The testi%on& of the "irl, Eufrasia $iasat, is clear and conclusive. !n it are related all the details of the occurrence, althou"h with the natural repu"nance of one who has to confess her own acts which constitute the sub+ect-%atter of the investi"ations %ade at the trial. $he related the nature of the relations which e5isted between her and the accused parish priest of $a%al? how such relations be"an to e5ist on an occasion when she went to confess to the said parish priest? how the latter succeeded in "ratif&in" his carnal desire for her in an apart%ent called a storeroo% near the confessional in the sa%e church? how such relations continued to e5ist durin" the ti%e that intervened between the %onths of #ul& and the last part of Nove%ber, ()(*, while the accused, as such parish priest of the town and friend of the fa%il& of the said "irl. had inti%ate social relations with the fa%il& and other relatives of the sa%e? and lastl&, she stated how %an& ti%es durin" all that period the accused had carnal 4nowled"e with her, to wit, once in the convent, and thrice in the roo% in which the said "irl was wont to sleep, that is in the house of her father, Mariano $iasat, into which roo% the accused cli%bed at %idni"ht thru the window and re%ained there with her until dawn. The testi%on& of the other witnesses which tended to corroborate all that has been narrated b& the offended part&, Eufrasia $iasat, is also e5plicit and conclusive. !n fact, #uana Ra%os testified that she acco%panied Eufrasia $iasat fro% $a%al, the latters residence, to >rani, one afternoon in the %onth of >ctober, ()(*? that Eufrasia went to the convent to "et, as she herself said, the si"nature of the +ustice of peace, and re%ained in said convent for a sufficientl& lon" ti%e? and that her acts showed that so%ethin" e5traordinar& had happened to her while she was in the convent, because she had her dress out of order, she confessin" the fact later on that she then had se5ual intercourse with the accused, and this is the occasion referred to b& the offended "irl when she had carnal 4nowled"e with the accused in the convent. Tran1uilino Adraneda, the husband of !sabel Ma"tanon", washerwo%an of Mariano $iasat, testified that the accused, re1uested the witness to acco%pan& hi% to the house of Eufrasia $iasat on occasions durin" the %onth of Nove%ber referred to b& the latter, on which occasion the accused went up to the house throu"h the window in the %anner in which the sa%e witness e5plained. @itness further said that the accused placed his feet over a pro+ectin" part of the house, and that witness re%ained in the street, waitin" for hi% until al%ost dawn when he returned to the convent. !sabel Ma"tanon", wife of the precedin" witness, li4ewise declared that she was the carrier of Eufrasia $iasats letters to the accused and of those of the latter to the for%er. lorencia $iasat, sister of the offended "irl, was also one of the persons whose services were availed of b& the accused in co%%unicatin", b& %eans of letters, with the "irl durin" the ti%e that those relations e5isted between the two. The witness stated that the accused and Eufrasia had occasion to %eet each other so%eti%es in the house of the latter, and that she :witness< was the carrier of a nec4lace with its %edal and also a nu%ber of s%all bottles of perfu%e "iven b& the parish priest #ulian, the accused, to be delivered to witness sister, Eufrasia, which ob+ects were presented at the trial and %ar4ed as E5hibits , 9, M, and N. 9astl&, the letters addressed b& the accused to the said "irl, which were discovered in her possession b& her father Mariano $iasat and fro% which the latter learned of the e5istence of the illicit relations between his dau"hter and the accuse, which letters were presented at the trial b& the prosecution, are the best and the %ost conclusive proof of the e5istence of said relations, as well as of the fact that the accused had carnal 4nowled"e several ti%es with said "irl. The authenticit& of said letters has been proven at the trial and there can be no doubt about it. Moreover, the
US v. Santiago
G.R. No. L-11374
5 of 9
declaration of Marcos Buensuceso, the supervisin" teacher of the town of Balan"a, province of Bataan, and for %ore than (* &ears a teacher, a%on" other thin"s, of pen%anship, relative to the si%ilarit& between the indubitable letters of the accused, written in his own handwritin" in the boo4s of the church under his char"e, which were e5hibited at the trial, and those of the above-%entioned letters, proves the authenticit& of said letters and can not be re+ected as contended b& the appellant in his brief, since there is no reason whatsoever for doin" so. The witness %ade a careful co%parison of the characters of the sa%e letters with those appearin" in a card of the accused, also presented b& the prosecution as E5hibit , and those of the indubitable si"nature of the accused on a petition appearin" on pa"e of the record of the case, which petition was addressed b& said accused on ece%ber (, ()(*, to the +ustice of the peace of $a%al as4in" for the postpon%ent to another da& of the preli%inar& investi"ation of the accusation presented a"ainst hi% before the said +ustice of the peace b& Mariano $iasat, as well as with the si"natures in the accuseds notice of appeal fro% the +ud"%ent and in the proceedin" of the publication of the sa%e, appearin" respectivel& on pa"es 2 and * of the sa%e cause. ro% this co%parison, it is seen that there is such a si%ilarit& and such a li4eness between the stri4es and characters of so%e letters and those of the others and such li4eness in the upstro4es and the inclination of all the letters as well as in the position of the periods, respectivel&, that there can be no roo% for doubt whatsoever that the said letters have been written b& the accused. The offended part&, Eufrasia $iasat, has declared that she received said letters and %an& others fro% the accused? that she burned the% before the& could be discovered b& her father? that so%e of the letters were delivered to her b& her sister, lorencia, and others b& the washerwo%an, !sabel Ma"tanon", the wife of Tran1uilino Adraneda. Those received b& her throu"h her sister are desi"nated as E5hibits 7 and !, and those, throu"h !sabel Ma"tanon", as E5hibits N and P. $he could not recall throu"h who% she had received the other two letters, E5hibits # and R. $he added, as a reason to assure that such letters were fro% the accused, that when the& two %et, the accused as4ed her if she had received the%. >n the other hand, the contents of the sa%e letters prove in an evident %anner that such letters were of the accused and de%onstrate with even "reater clearness the e5istence of the illicit relations between the "irls and the accused and the concrete fact of the accuseds havin" had carnal 4nowled"e with her. !n fact, in the letter E5hibit P the accused, in spea4in" of Eufrasitas love, re%inds her of the first se5ual intercourse he had with her in the storeroo% and the protests and pro%ises of low which she %ade to hi, while the& were then both l&in". 7e also %a4es an allusion in that letter to what she told hi% when on another occasion the& were l&in" to"ether in the accuseds bed in the convent. The envelope containin" said letter was also presented at the trial as E5hibit P and was %oreover %ar4ed with No. (. But said envelope was written with si"ns and ciphers. !n order to understand what has been written in it, a 4e& :E5hibit $< to the said si"ns and ciphers was li4ewise presented, which 4e&, accordin" to the said Eufrasia $iasat, was prepared b& her and was usuall& availed of b& the accused in co%%unicatin" with her. ecipherin" what has been written in the said envelope b& %eans of the said 4e&, it appears that in it the accused "ives notice to the "irl that on the ni"ht of the followin" da&, at the usual hour or a little bit later, he would "o up to her roo% and that she should not close the window, char"in" her, %oreover, with %a4in" the necessar& arran"e%ents in order that, in case her father should enter the roo%, he :the accused< would have a place to hide hi%self in, and addin" that, at all events, she should answer hi% throu"h the washerwo%an :referrin" to !sabel Ma"tanon"< whether or not such an en"a"e%ent was possible. !n the letter, E5hibit #, the accused spea4s of his endeavorin" to have the "irl elope fro% her parents house, althou"h he e5presses his fears in view of the fact that the "irl was below (8 &ears of a"e. !n the said letter, he
US v. Santiago
G.R. No. L-11374
6 of 9
%a4es reference to a certain Ate, who, accordin" to what has been proved at the trial, was lorencia $iasat, the elder sister of the offended "irl, and fro% who%, the accused said, he received a letter addressed to hi% b& Eufrasia and to who%, in turn, he delivered a letter in repl& thereto. !n the letter, E5hibit R, the accused tells Eufrasia that the ni"ht before was the happiest in his life and that he has written a %e%orandu% of this event in his boo4 in letters of "old and blood. !n it, he re%inds her of what occurred that ni"ht and relates how he reached her house, wal4in" behind his co%panion :referrin" undoubtedl& to Tran1uilino Adraneda< who, as has bee seen, stated that he had acco%panied the accused on occasion that the latter went at ni"ht to the house of the "irl. >n the envelope containin" the sa%e letter :record, p. (;;< which was also written with si"ns and ciphers that were translated b& %eans of the 4e&, E5hibit $, the accused %a4es an allusion to the washerwo%an, that is, !sabel Ma"tanon", advisin" Eufrasia to see to it that the said washerwo%an did not tal4 with a friend of theirs, na%ed Car%en, in order that she %i"ht e5clusivel& be in their service, and in order there %a& be no cause for their destruction or, in other words, in order that other persons %a& not 4now the relations e5istin" between the accused and said Eufrasia. !n the letter E5hibit D, the accused a"ain tells the offended "irl of the proposed elope%ent, sa&in" that he is unable to deter%ine +ust when such an elope%ent can ta4e place, because as &et he has not found a person who is able to help hi% in carr&in" it out. 7e also %a4es %ention of the washerwo%an, b& referrin" to a certain %essa"e he "ave her? as4s Eufrasia the hours when her father sleeps %ost soundl& so that he %a& cli%b into the house while the ni"ht is dar4? tells her, %oreover, not to worr&, because nothin" can happen to the%? %a4es her understand that he will await her answer and that he can not cli%b into the house unless he receives such an answer. !n the sa%e letter it is stated that with it was a letter addressed to the offended "irl b& the parish priest 9eon 9ope/. This letter is the sa%e E5hibit B previousl& %entioned in this decision wherein, as has been seen, said parish priest of inalupihan, referrin" to the accused, called hi% the husband of Eufrasia $iasat? called latter 3 comadre Cita,3 and offered, %oreover, to beco%e the sponsor at the baptis% of the first fruit of their love, re1uestin" at the sa%e ti%e that she answer hi% at inalupihan. !n the letter E5hibit !, dated Nove%ber 2, ()(, one of those letters received b& Eufrasia throu"h her sister lorencia the accused re%inds the for%er of the words she uttered at the be"innin" of their a%orous relations? spea4s repeatedl& of his affection and love? and e5presses what would beco%e of hi%self if he ever could "a/e at the fruit of their love. 7e infor%s her that on the followin" da& he will be absent for so%e da&s fro% the town and re1uests that when he returns she should write to hi% to the end that the& %a& see each other and have a "ood ti%e in the house of Ate, that is of lorencia. 9astl&, in the letter, E5hibit 7, also one of those received b& Eufrasia $iasat throu"h her sister, lorencia, the accused sa&s that the said letter was written in Manila and at the conclusion he adds that it was finished at $a%al. !n it he ac4nowled"es receipt of the letter of the offended "irl, on the ni"ht before this departure fro% the said town. !n re%indin" her of his love and of the carnal conversations had with her he sa&s the followin"' 3rasita' $ince the ti%e we united ourselves into one and %i5ed out blood, &ou are now a part of %&self.3 7e also e5presses his "reat desire to find %eans whereb& the free union of the two %a& be reali/ed? reiterates his intention of havin" her escape fro% her parents house, but advises her to be patient because he can not as &et reali/e such a plan? and pro%ises to live with her durin" all his life. !n the sa%e letter, he also sa&s that he has bou"ht for her in Manila, where he then was, a %edal with a nec4lace and the bottles of perfu%e, !ronia, ivinia, and Rosas de rancia, that is the sa%e ob+ects which were delivered to"ether with the letter to the said "irl b& her sister lorencia accordin" to the testi%on& of the latter and all of which were presented at the trial as E5hibits , 9, M, and N? and in the sa%e letter he also sa&s that the ob+ects above-%entioned would be delivered to Eufrasia on rida& in the house of
US v. Santiago
G.R. No. L-11374
7 of 9
lorencia, to which house he also would "o and for this reason he proposed an appoint%ent to %eet her there. urther%ore, in the sa%e letter, the accused tells Eufrasia to find %eans whereb& he can cli%b into her house at ni"htfall, in order that the& can en+o& for a lon"er ti%e, addin" that she should not fear an&thin" at all, because he could hide hi%self under Eufrasias bed, should her father happen to visit her in her roo%. !n the said letter, he also sa&s the followin"' 37ow nice it is to love a rasita. o &ou 4now wh& Because, ever&thin" "oes well, as for e5a%ple, in the e5a%ination, ! did not e5pect that ! could answer so well as ! did, and ! said to %&self' 3All this is for rasita.3 3 And, in truth, the accused, testif&in" at the trial, said that on that occasion he ca%e to Manila to ta4e a s&nodal e5a%ination, and after his e5a%ination he returned to $a%al on Nove%ber th, or two da&s after the date of the letter in 1uestion, E5hibit 7. !n all the said letters the accused calls the offended "irl 3rasita,3 3M& dear wife.3 !t also appears at the trial that he "ave the sa%e "irl his picture which was presented as E5hibit F, and also several "ifts consistin" of hand4erchiefs and other ob+ects. No better and %ore co%plete e5position of the truth can be "iven than that testified to b& the offended "irl, Eufrasia $iasat, and the "overn%ent witnesses above-%entioned. !n the face of such an evidence, that adduced b& the defense was rendered useless and even fatal to the purposes for which it was introduced. The accused has absolutel& denied, as is natural, the acts i%puted to hi% and atte%pted to prove, b& the persons servin" under hi% in the convent and two se5tons of the church of which he was the parish priest in the said town, that it was i%possible for hi% to co%%it se5ual intercourse with Eufrasia $iasat in the confessional or in the convent on the occasions referred to b& the "irl in her testi%on& without the witnesses learnin" such fact? that the accused had not an& ti%e absented hi%self fro% the convent durin" the ni"ht, for it he had, one of said se5tons would have beco%e aware of it. But, besides the fact that the testi%on& of these witnesses was necessaril& partial in favor of the accused, it can readil& be seen that neither of the% was alwa&s with the accused in the convent or in the church, so that it can not be held that the latter could not e5ecute an& act whatsoever, especiall& of the nature of the act perpetrated b& hi% upon the person of the "irl Eufrasia, without the said witnesses seein" or 4nowin" such an act. >n the other hand, one of said se5tons, Macario acotan, testified that in the church there was as division called storeroo% which had onl& one co%part%ent? that the said storeroo% had a s%all door in the sa%e church and so%e lu%ber inside. This testi%on& shows that the accused could utili/e the said storeroo% and one of the pieces of lu%ber therein in carr&in" out the repu"nant and cri%inal intent which he had conceived when he found Eufrasia alone in the church. Accordin" to the other se5ton, Macario MaGasca, who affir%ed that he was wont to sleep at the %ain door of the roo% of the accused priest said roo% had other accessor& doors which co%%unicated with the other roo%s of the convent, and in "oin" out of said roo% it was not necessar& to pass throu"h the %ain door. 7ence, the accused could have absented hi%self fro% the convent durin" all the ti%e he wanted to without bein" noticed b& the witness. @ith respect to the two other witnesses who were in the service of the accused, Mar"arita $aldaGa and Tecla Bu"a&, old wo%en of and 0 &ears of a"e, respectivel&, it is clearl& understood how eas& it was for the accused to evade the presence of these witnesses and even to free hi%self fro% their curiosit& whenever he wanted to, and it was even easier for hi% to do these thin"s in his own roo% or bed roo% in the convent.
US v. Santiago
G.R. No. L-11374
8 of 9
Aside fro% this, the offended "irl, in referrin" to what occurred between her and the accused on the afternoon that she went to the convent to find the priest to who% she intended to confess, because the latter was not then in the church, e5plained how, in spite of the presence of the said two old wo%en in the convent, the accused succeeded in in"ratiatin" hi%self to her and e5ecutin" the unchaste acts previousl& %entioned, out of the presence of the said old wo%en. $he said that, whenever the priest or an& other person could not be found in the church, it was the custo% in $a%al for an&one loo4in" for the priest to "o to the convent and find hi% there, and this was what she di? that when she arrived at the convent she found the two old wo%en one of who% was on her side and the other, after learnin" that said "irl ca%e to confess, when to find the priest, #ulian? that a few %o%ents later the priest appeared and when he stated to the witness that she could %a4e her confession in the sa%e convent, the other old wo%an witness was left alone with the priest, #ulian, the latter told her and did to her what has alread& been said. !t was also atte%pted to be proven b& the defense that Eufrasia $iasat had illicit relations not with the accused but with the brother of the latter, na%ed o%in"o $antia"o who affir%ed that he had se5ual intercourse once with the said "irl in the said storeroo% of the church and that he had co%%unication with the sa%e "irl b& %eans of letters. But, aside fro% the fact that, accordin" to the testi%on& of this witness, the occasions when he could spea4 with Eufrasia $iasat were rare because he ver& seldo% went to visit his brothers in $a%al and re%ained in the town for a few da&s, which fact renders his testi%on& absurd, it is perfectl& e5plained that the witness is interested on behalf of his brother to such an e5tent that he is even willin" to incri%inate hi%self b& %eans of such state%ents which have not been corroborated at all at the trial. Moreover, the falsit& of such a testi%on& has been de%onstrated b& the fact that the three letters, E5hibits , *, and ), alle"ed to have been written b& the witness to the "irl and presented b& the defense to prove the e5istence of the relations between the witness and the offended "irl, show that the upper parts of the first two letters, where the addressees na%e should be placed, appear to have been cut or suppressed, a fact which shows that there was an atte%pt to hide the na%e of the person to who% the said letters were addressed respectivel&. Moreover, in the third letter the addressees na%e, the date, and the word 3Ma&nila3 which is seen in the ei"hth line, have been superposed in the place of other words which %ust have been previousl& erased. And, on the other hand, fro% the testi%on& of the offended "irl herself who assured that the letter, E5hibit *, was hers and one of those written b& her to the accused, in view of the si%ilarit& between the character of the said letter and those of the other two, E5hibits and ), it is clearl& deduced that the said letters %ust be so%e of those, which, accordin" to the "irl, were written b& her to the accused durin" the e5istence of the relations between the% and that the said letters have been presented b& the defense as havin" been written b& the offended "irl to the accuseds brother, o%in"o $antia"o, to %a4e it appear, as pointed out b& the Attorne&-Heneral in his brief, that it was o%in"o and not his brother, the priest #ulian, that had those relations with the said "irl, in order that o%in"o $antia"o %a& assu%e the responsibilit& for the act perpetrated to save his said brother, the priest #ulian. And this is reall& what is reasonabl& and lo"icall& inferred fro% the presentation of said evidence and fro% the fact that the upper parts of two of the said letters where the addresses na%e should be placed appear to have been cut and fro% the fact that there e5ist so%e chan"es in the third letter a%on" which is that of the na%e of the person to who% it had been addressed. There were also presented b& the defense at the trial, several letters si"ned b& different persons, which appear to have been addressed to the sa%e Eufrasia $iasat, to %a4e the court believe that the latter had a%orous relations with the writers of the said letters. 7owever, such an evidence has no i%portance at all, in view of the fact that it has not been e5plained how said letters, addressed as the& were to Eufrasia, had co%e into the possession of the accused to be presented b& hi% as defense at the trial, and in view of the further fact that the best proof should have been to present the authors of the said letters instead of hidin" the%, a circu%stance which renders ver& doubtful the authenticit& of the sa%e letters, the truth of the sa%e, and of the ob+ect sou"ht b& the defense in presentin" such
US v. Santiago
G.R. No. L-11374
9 of 9
an evidence. Besides, even if it were true that the "irl Eufrasia $iasat had a%orous relations with an& other person before she had fallen a victi% of the accused, there bein" no proof that such relations had been unchaste and that the na%e and reputation of the said "irl as a vir"in and an honorable wo%an had suffered an& in+ur&, the e5istence of such prior relations can not be used b& the accused for his defense. The acts proven at the trial constitute the cri%e of 1ualified seduction prescribed and punished b& Article **, par. ( of the Penal Code. The "uilt of the accused as the author of the said cri%e havin" been proven without the concurrence of an& %odif&in" circu%stance, the penalt& i%posed upon said accused in its %ediu% de"ree, such as has been i%posed upon hi% b& the trial court in the +ud"%ent appealed fro%, is propert&, althou"h the accused should also be conde%ned to reco"ni/e and %aintain the offsrpin" which his illicit relations with the said "irl would produce. The penalt& i%posed upon the accused, %odified in the %anner shown above, is hereb& affir%ed in all its parts, with the costs a"ainst the appellant. $o ordered. Torres, Carson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.
