People v. Mariano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Vicente Mariano was charged with the crime of abuse against chastity. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted the accused and sentenced him to three years, six months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional. The accused appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court. The Appeal: The accused-appellant filed a motion praying for the dismissal of the case, submitting a marriage certificate as proof that he had married the offended party. The Attorney-General opposed the motion, arguing that under Article 448 of the Penal Code and Act No. 1773, the marriage of the accused with the offended party does not extinguish his liability for the crime of abuse against chastity.
Issue(s)
Whether the legal marriage of the accused with the offended party extinguishes his criminal liability for the crime of abuse against chastity, considering Section 2 of Act No. 1773. Whether the crime of 'abuse against chastity' is included within the term 'rape' as used in Section 2 of Act No. 1773.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the marriage of the accused with the offended party extinguishes his criminal liability for the crime of abuse against chastity. The case was dismissed with costs de officio.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court determined that the central legal question was whether Section 2 of Act No. 1773, which provides for the extinguishment of criminal liability by marriage in specific cases, includes the crime of abuse against chastity. The Court analyzed the text of Section 2, which explicitly mentions estupro, rapto, or violacion. It then proceeded to interpret whether 'abuse against chastity' falls under these categories or is implicitly included by legislative intent. The Court concluded that the marriage of the accused with the offended party did extinguish his criminal liability for abuse against chastity. On Issue 2: The Court reasoned that while rape and abuse against chastity are distinct articles in the Penal Code (Articles 438 and 439, respectively), they are found within the same chapter and are of the same nature, differing primarily in the element of intent to lie. The Court cited Pacheco's commentary, which suggests that abuse against chastity involves similar violence but without the complete consummation of rape. Furthermore, the Court noted that jurisprudence allows conviction for abuse against chastity even when the charge is rape, if the evidence proves lewd acts but not consummated, frustrated, or attempted rape. Therefore, the Court concluded that the legislative intent in Act No. 1773, by providing for the extinction of liability in graver cases like rape, logically extends to the lesser offense of abuse against chastity, which is closely related and often considered a lesser degree of the same offense.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that the crime of abuse against chastity, though distinct in its elements from rape, is considered included within the contemplation of 'rape' as mentioned in Section 2 of Act No. 1773. Consequently, the legal marriage between the accused and the offended party extinguishes the criminal liability for abuse against chastity, aligning with the legislative intent to provide for the extinction of liability in graver offenses and, by extension, lesser offenses of a similar nature.