GR L 25176; (February, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25176 February 27, 1968
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. AGAPITO YAP, JR., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The accused, Agapito Yap, Jr., was convicted of simple seduction by the Municipal Court of Baliangao. On appeal to the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, a new information was filed accusing him of simple seduction under Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on or about May 15, 1959, and for some time subsequently, the accused, by deceit and false promise of marriage, willfully seduced and had sexual intercourse several times with Catalina Babol, a virgin over 12 but under 18 years of age, resulting in pregnancy with abortion thereafter. The accused moved to quash the information, claiming it alleged multiple acts of simple seduction and the offense of criminal abortion. The prosecution expressed willingness to eliminate the word “abortion.” The trial court sustained the accused and ordered the amendment of the information to avoid placing the accused in danger of being convicted more than once or for two crimes in one information, otherwise the case would be dismissed. The prosecution appealed.
ISSUE
Whether or not the information violates the prohibition against duplicity of offenses as provided in Section 12 of Revised Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the case for proceedings on the merits. The Court ruled that the information did not charge more than one offense. The allegation of sexual intercourse “several times” and the details of pregnancy and abortion were merely particulars of the entire incident of seduction upon which the charge was based, serving to inform the accused of the matters to be proved at trial. These details do not constitute separate offenses. The clause “May 15, 1959 and for sometime subsequent thereto” was to establish the timeframe for determining the age of the offended party. The Court clarified that in simple seduction, the criminal act is consummated upon the first violation of chastity under a deceitful promise, and subsequent acts of intercourse under the same promise do not constitute separate offenses. The prosecution’s expressed willingness to delete the averment of abortion was noted, and an amendment to that effect was deemed in order.