G.R. No. L-9118; November 26, 1913
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELINO SANTIAGO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The offended party, Benita Mateo, was a virgin about fourteen years old. In October 1912, she moved to Manila to live with her sister, Teodora Mateo, and Teodora’s husband, Manuel Ilonso, to continue her studies. On or about January 12, 1913, the appellant, Felino Santiago, a distant relative, began boarding and lodging in the same house for a monthly payment. They all lived together as one family, with the appellant enjoying the absolute confidence of the household. The appellant and Benita slept in the upper part of the house, while Teodora and her husband slept in the lower part. About a month before the appellant was expelled from the house on April 2, 1913, he began having illicit relations with Benita without the knowledge or consent of her sister or brother-in-law. These relations continued until his expulsion, when he was caught in a compromising position with Benita by her father. The appellant had induced Benita to consent to the relations by solemnly promising to marry her, a promise he never intended to fulfill. The trial court convicted the appellant of seduction and sentenced him to prision correccional.

ISSUE:
Whether the appellant is a “domestic” within the meaning of Article 443 of the Penal Code, thereby warranting the heavier penalty under its first paragraph, or merely a seducer by deceit punishable under its third paragraph by arresto mayor.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the trial court. The appellant was correctly classified as a “domestic” under the first paragraph of Article 443 of the Penal Code.

The Court held that the term “domestic” in Article 443 is not restricted to servants. It applies to persons usually living under the same roof, constituting part of the household, and enjoying the intimacy and confidence of the family. This interpretation is based on sound principles of law and morality, as the betrayal of trust within a household is as reprehensible as the betrayal by others in positions of authority or care enumerated in the law.

The Court distinguished the case from one where a person seduces another while merely staying at a public inn. Here, the appellant, though a paying boarder and a temporary resident, was a relative treated as part of the family circle. The familial relationship and the confidential nature of his position within the home, not the mercenary aspect of his board, were controlling. The Court cited analogous Spanish jurisprudence where individuals temporarily residing in a household (e.g., a convalescing girl, a servant seduced by a brother of the head of the house, a college student on vacation) were considered “domestics” for the purpose of this crime.

Therefore, the appellant, having seduced a virgin under twenty-three while being a member of the same household, was properly convicted and sentenced under the first paragraph of Article 443.