Babanto vs. Zosa
FACTS:
The victim, Leonida Dagohoy, a 13-year old girl of considerably low mentality, was was seat seated ed in the the mark market et when when accu accuse sed, d, Euse Eusebi bio o Ba Baba bant nto, o, a oli olice cema man, n, aroached and held her right hand and brought her to the !B" #all$ There was no one in the !B" #all and it was dark$ %hen they arrived there, accused made her lie down with her face uward$ %hile in that osition, accused lifted the girl&s dress and removed her anty$ The girl tried to kick him but he held her down$ The accused accused e'osed his enis, laid down on to of the girl and commenced commenced the se'ual act$ !fterwards, he threatened to shoot her if she was going to tell her arents and left$ The girl felt ain in her vagina which emitted blood$ (he confided her ordeal to her mother after the latter observed her to be weak and feverish$ )nitially, accused was was charg charged ed with with rae rae but but the the *T" *T" foun found d him guilty guilty of the the lesse lesserr offe offense nse of +ualified seduction due to lack of violence or intimidation$ ISSUE:
%hether or not the *T" erred in convicting accused of +ualified seduction$
RULING:
es$ RATIO:
The comlaint alleged that the accused abused his osition as a oliceman, that Leonida Dagohoy was of the tender age of 13, and that the accused had carnal knowledge of the comlainant$ #owever, there is no allegation that the comlainant was a virgin$ )t is true that virginity is resumed if the girl is over 1. and under 1/ yea earrs of age, age, is unma unmarrried ried and and of good good reut eutat atio ion$ n$ The The res resum umtion tion notwit notwithsta hstandin nding, g, virgin virginity ity is still still an essenti essential al element element of the crime crime of +ualif +ualified ied seducti seduction on and must be allege alleged d in the comlaint comlaint$$ ! convict conviction ion for the crime crime of +ualified +ualified seduction without the allegation allegation of virginity virginity would violate the etitioner0s etitioner0s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him$ )n the instant case, considering the age, mental abnormality, and deficiency of the comlainant comlainant lus the fact that the accused-etitione accused-etitionerr was at the time of the incident in uniform and with a side arm, there was sufficient intimidation to convict for rae$ The fact that the comlainant kicked the accused- etitioner while the latter was lifting her dress and removing her anty and that she cried afterwards negate any consent on her art to the se'ual intercourse$
Perez vs CA (1!!" FACTS:
n .1 cto ctober ber 124 124,, oland landa a 5e 5end ndo6 o6a a file filed d a crimi crimina nall coml comlai aint nt for for "onsented !bduction against etitioner Eleuterio 7ere6 in the "8) of 7amanga Br$ 9) for having se'ual intercourse with her twice but reneged on his romise to marry her$ (ubse+uently, he was convicted for the same$ n aeal, the "! reversed and ac+uitted 7ere6 of "onsented !bduction$ n .. :uly 12/3, the same comlainant charged 7ere6 of ;ualified (eduction in the 5T" of 7amanga Br$ 9)$ 7ere6 filed a motion to +uash invoking double
!re "onsent "onsented ed !bduc !bductio tion n and ;ualif ;ualified ied (educti (eduction on sear searate ate and distinc distinctt offenses offenses in that etitioner etitioner may not roerly invoke invoke the constitutional constitutional right against against double
RULING:
es$ es$ The The very very natur nature e of thes these e two two offe offens nses es woul would d nega negate te any any iden identit tity y between them as would make alicable the rule on double
)t is true that the two offenses for which etitioner was charged arose from the same facts$ facts$ This, however, however, does not reclude reclude the filing of another another information information agains againstt him if from from those those facts, facts, two distin distinct ct offens offenses, es, each each re+uir re+uiring ing differ different ent elements, arose$ !n e'amination 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 alicable the rule on double
