G.R. No. L-5217, THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANIEL LOPEZ, defendant-appellant., December 13, 1909

FACTS:
Venancia Peralta charged Daniel Lopez with the crime of estupro. Peralta had lived for several years in the house of her grandfather, Benedicto Lopez, where Daniel Lopez, Benedicto’s adopted son, also resided. In early 1904, Daniel Lopez promised to marry Peralta, after which they engaged in sexual intercourse. As a result, Peralta became pregnant and gave birth to a female child in February 1905. Even after the pregnancy and birth, Daniel Lopez reiterated his promise to marry Peralta after completing his studies, in the presence of witnesses. Daniel Lopez denied having sexual intercourse or promising marriage and attempted to show that Peralta had improper relations with other men. The trial court found Lopez guilty, sentencing him to one month and one day of arresto mayor, P500 indemnity, recognition and support of the child (P10/month until majority), and costs.

ISSUE:
Whether the seduction of Venancia Peralta by Daniel Lopez was committed with fraud or deceit, an essential element of the crime of estupro.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the seduction was effected under a promise of marriage. The Court held that the element of deceit, essential to the crime of estupro, was present. This conclusion was drawn considering the close relationship of the parties (living in the same household, one being the adopted son and the other the granddaughter of the same man), the evident serious nature of the promise to marry as testified by Peralta, and the subsequent conduct of Daniel Lopez.
The Court modified the penalty, finding that with no aggravating or extenuating circumstances, the appropriate sentence for arresto mayor in its medium degree is two months and one day, not one month and one day.

Final Judgment: Daniel Lopez was found guilty of estupro and sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor, to indemnify Venancia Peralta in the sum of P500, to recognize the child born in February 1905 as his own, to support the said child by paying P10 per month to her mother until the child’s majority, and to pay the costs of the prosecution. The judgment, as modified, was affirmed.