People v. Fideldia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, a 18-year-old male student, induced his 19-year-old female cousin to leave her father's home without consent and accompany him to his father's house. There, they engaged in illicit relations during a two to three-month vacation. The visit was motivated by the desire to carry on these relations with greater impunity. Procedural History: The accused was convicted in the court below for the crime of rapto (abduction) under Article 446 of the Penal Code. The Appeal: The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the proofs did not establish the commission of the crime of abduction as defined and penalized by law.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty of abduction under Article 446 of the Penal Code when the woman involved was over 18 years of age.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the defendant. The Court held that the proofs did not establish the commission of the crime of abduction as charged, based on its interpretation of the age limit under Article 446 of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the defendant was erroneously convicted of abduction under Article 446 of the Penal Code. The woman in question was over 19 years of age at the time of the alleged abduction. While Article 446 penalizes the abduction of a virgin over twelve and under twenty-three years of age, committed with her consent, the Court reasoned that subsequent legal changes, specifically the Civil Code's establishment of 18 years as the age of majority, implicitly modified this provision. The Court opined that the legislator, in setting the age limit at 23 in Article 446, had in mind the former law's strict control over women under that age, including their inability to marry without parental consent. However, with the change of sovereignty, the age at which a woman can marry without parental consent was fixed at 18 years. Therefore, by necessary implication, the age limit for abduction with consent under Article 446 must be considered the same as the age limit for marrying without parental consent, which is 18 years. Since the woman was over 19, she was no longer subject to the strict control contemplated by Article 446, and thus, the crime of abduction with consent was not committed. The Court acknowledged that the defendant might be guilty of seduction or another allied offense, but the complaint was specifically for abduction, of which he was found not guilty.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that the age limit for abduction with consent under Article 446 of the Penal Code must be understood as implicitly modified by the Civil Code's provision establishing 18 years as the age of majority. Consequently, a woman over 18 years of age, even if under 23, cannot be the subject of abduction with consent as defined by Article 446, as she is legally considered capable of leaving her home and marrying without parental consent.