GR L 3859; (January, 1908) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3859
THE UNITED STATES and ROMANA NALLES, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. FELIX ARLANTE, defendant-appellant.
January 15, 1908
FACTS:
Felix Arlante was convicted by the lower court of carnally abusing two orphan girls, relatives of his wife, who were sheltered in his house. The complainant, Romana Nalles, one of the victims, gave birth to a child on November 5, 1905. The other victim, who testified for the prosecution, gave birth on October 15, 1905. The trial court sentenced Arlante to imprisonment, accessory penalties, P500 indemnity to the injured woman, and P8 monthly support for the offspring. Arlante appealed his conviction, arguing against the judgment. The Court noted that even the defense’s evidence, including the testimony of Arlante’s wife, corroborated the facts of abuse.
ISSUE:
Whether Felix Arlante was correctly convicted of seduction under Article 443, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code, particularly concerning the interpretation of “domestic” and the absence of fraud or deceit.
RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court. The Court ruled that the crime committed falls under Article 443, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code, which punishes seduction characterized by an excess of power or abuse of confidence, rather than by fraud or deceit (as required by paragraph 3). Article 443, paragraph 1, applies when the offender holds a position of authority or trust over the offended party, such as a public officer, priest, servant, domestic, tutor, or teacher, making the act punishable even if fraud or deceit was not employed. The Court found that even if Arlante was not formally “in charge of the keeping” of the offended girl, she was undeniably a “domestic” in his house. Citing a previous decision, the Court defined “domestic” as a person “usually living under the same roof, pertaining to the same house, and constituting, in this sense, a part thereof,” distinguishing it from a “servant” who works for a salary. Since Arlante sheltered the orphan girls, they were considered domestics, placing his actions squarely within the purview of Article 443, paragraph 1.