G.R. No. L-8285; August 15, 1913
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TOMAS TRIA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Tomas Tria was charged with the crime of estupro (seduction). The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to prision correccional, among other penalties. The evidence established that in July 1911, in Nueva Caceres, Ambos Camarines, Tria, by means of deceit and a promise of marriage, had carnal knowledge of Fermina Ani, a 17-year-old virgin, resulting in the birth of a child. The complaint did not allege that Tria belonged to any special class of persons (e.g., domestic, guardian, teacher) mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 443 of the Penal Code. The trial court, however, found him to be a “domestic” based on evidence that he lived in the offended party’s house.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused under paragraph 1 of Article 443 of the Penal Code (which imposes a heavier penalty for seduction committed by persons in a position of authority or trust) despite the complaint’s failure to allege that he belonged to that special class.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court modified the conviction. The penalty under paragraph 1 of Article 443 applies only to the specific class of persons enumerated therein (e.g., persons in public authority, priest, domestic, guardian, teacher). This status is a necessary element of the qualified crime. Since the complaint did not allege that Tria was a “domestic” or any such person, he could only be validly charged under paragraph 3 of the same article, which punishes “any other person” who commits seduction by means of deceit. The facts stated in the body of the information govern the crime charged, and they must contain every fact necessary to qualify the offense. Here, the information lacked the qualifying allegation. Therefore, Tria was correctly guilty of seduction, but under paragraph 3, not paragraph 1, of Article 443. The penalty was reduced to arresto mayor in its medium degree (four months of imprisonment). The other aspects of the sentence (indemnity, recognition and support of offspring, pension) were affirmed.