G.R. No. L-14454; March 21, 1919
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISABELO REYNALDO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On the evening of November 4, 1917, Matea Bustillo, a 14-year-old girl, and her 7-year-old cousin Modesto Mariano were returning home in Manila. The accused, Isabelo Reynaldo, who was unknown to them, detained them. He falsely represented himself as a secret service agent, accused them of stealing a piece of lumber they were carrying, and ordered them to follow him to the “secret service quarters.” Through intimidation and fraud, he made them walk, then ride in a rig, to a remote hut near the seashore in Parañaque. There, he threatened the children, maltreated the boy when he tried to interfere, and despite the girl’s resistance and cries, forcibly raped Matea Bustillo. After the act, he abandoned them. The children, lost and afraid, later encountered a squad of Parañaque policemen. Initially suspicious, they eventually recounted the crime. The policemen investigated, found physical evidence at the hut, and located the accused, whom the children immediately identified. The girl was examined, and bloodstains were found on her clothing.

ISSUE:
Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of abduction with rape under Article 445 of the Penal Code (abduction of a woman against her will with lewd designs).

RULING:
Yes, the accused is guilty of abduction with rape under Article 445 of the Penal Code. The Court en banc affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The elements of the crime were all present: (1) the rape of a woman; (2) committed against her will; and (3) accomplished with lewd designs. The abduction was effected through intimidation and fraud, as the accused posed as an agent of authority, instilling fear in the young and uneducated victims. This intimidation was sufficient to constitute taking the girl against her will, as material resistance could not be expected from a 14-year-old girl dominated by an adult male. Her subsequent cries and resistance at the hut, and the accused’s use of force to overcome it, confirmed the absence of consent. The crime was consummated by rape. No aggravating or mitigating circumstances attended its commission.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day) was affirmed, with the corresponding accessory penalties, an indemnity of P500 to the offended girl, and an order to recognize any offspring.

DISSENTING OPINION:
A minority opinion held that the crime committed was abduction with consent under Article 446, not abduction against will under Article 445. The dissent argued that the accused used deceit, not violence, to make the girl accompany him, and she did not complain to the policemen they met before the rape. Thus, a lesser penalty should apply.