G.R. No. L-5423

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SERAPIO POQUIS, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

October 9, 1909

FACTS:

On the night of January 13, 1909, Serapio Poquis, Francisco Roque, Ireneo Asuncion, and other defendants, armed with bolos and clubs, forcibly entered the house of Felisardo de Vera in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. They bound Felisardo, roughly handled and beat the women present, and abducted Felisa Evangelista, a 15-year-old girl, against her will. Francisco Roque took Felisa Evangelista to a neighboring district and lived with her for several months, cohabiting as man and wife, all against her protests.

The trial court found all defendants guilty of abduction, except for Francisco Roque, who was acquitted because he subsequently married Felisa Evangelista. The other defendants (Serapio Poquis, et al.) were sentenced to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, ordered to jointly and severally indemnify Felisa Evangelista in the sum of P500, and to pay costs. The convicted defendants appealed, arguing that Felisa went willingly and not by force.

ISSUE:

Whether the subsequent marriage of the principal accused, Francisco Roque, to the offended party, Felisa Evangelista, also bars the prosecution of the other co-defendants for the crime of abduction, pursuant to Section 2 of Act No. 1773 .

RULING:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent marriage of Francisco Roque to Felisa Evangelista is a bar to the prosecution of all the defendants, including the appellants, for the crime of abduction.

The Court, motu proprio (on its own initiative), considered Section 2 of Act No. 1773 , which provides that the subsequent marriage of the offended party to the accused extinguishes the criminal action or remits the penalty already imposed for the crimes of seduction, rape, abduction, or forcible abduction. While the trial court only applied this provision to acquit Francisco Roque, the Supreme Court interpreted the law to extend the benefit of such marriage to all co-defendants involved in the abduction.

Therefore, the judgment of the lower court was reversed, and all defendants were acquitted of the crime charged and ordered discharged from custody.