G.R. No. 6923 , September 12, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VALENTIN BERNABE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the morning of July 30, 1910, Valentin Bernabe accompanied Ana Arasigan, a 14-year-old unmarried minor, on her way to work in Manila. Under the pretext of being late, he persuaded her to take a carromata (a horse-drawn vehicle). After she boarded, Bernabe suddenly joined her, ordered the driver to proceed to San Miguel and the Ayala Bridge, and ultimately to the pueblo of Pasig, despite Ana’s requests to stop as they were not heading to her workplace. During the journey, Ana did not cry out for help, fearing a scene. Bernabe assured her they would marry in Pasig, to which she expressed unwillingness. Upon arrival, Bernabe tried to force her into a house. When she resisted and cried, a neighbor alerted policeman Esteban Santos, who took both to the municipal building. Ana was later claimed by her mother. Bernabe was charged with abduction.

ISSUE

Whether the accused, Valentin Bernabe, is guilty of the crime of abduction under Article 446 of the Penal Code, considering the element of unchaste designs and the alleged consent of the minor.

RULING

YES, the accused is guilty of abduction. The Supreme Court, through Justice Torres, affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the acts constituted abduction with the offended party’s assent, as Ana did not protest or seek help during the trip through populous areas, indicating her acquiescence. While Article 446 does not expressly require unchaste designs, the Court found such designs present because Bernabe, upon arrival in Pasig, took Ana to a private house instead of a court or church for marriage, demonstrating an immoral intent that was only thwarted by the policeman’s intervention. No aggravating or mitigating circumstances attended the crime, so the penalty of prision correccional in its medium degree was properly imposed.

DISSENTING OPINION (Justice Moreland):
Justice Moreland, with whom Justice Carson concurred, dissented. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove unchaste designs beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence showed Bernabe’s stated intent was to marry Ana, and his conduct (e.g., taking her to a house where he was unknown) was inconsistent with a premeditated immoral purpose. The dissent emphasized that the doing of the act (taking her to Pasig) does not raise a presumption of specific criminal intent (unchaste designs) required for the offense. Therefore, Bernabe’s guilt was not established, and he should be acquitted.