G.R. No. L-9201; March 3, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PABLO SUAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant-appellant, Pablo Suan, a teacher, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Palawan for the crime of seduction. The offended party, Aniceta Saldivia, was a 14-year-old pupil under his instruction. She testified that in 1911, Suan courted her under a promise of marriage, and beginning in October of that year, they had sexual intercourse for a period of seven months. She became pregnant and gave birth in June 1912. The defense presented conclusive evidence that, prior to her relations with Suan, Saldivia had engaged in illicit sexual intercourse with various other young men. The trial court noted this fact but considered it merely as an extenuating circumstance, as Suan was unaware of her prior conduct when their relations began.

ISSUE:
Whether the facts, wherein a teacher had carnal knowledge of a female pupil over twelve and under twenty-three years of age under a promise of marriage, but where the female was not a virgin at the time due to prior voluntary sexual relations with other men, constitute the crime of seduction under Article 443 of the Penal Code.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the defendant.
The Court held that prior absolute chastity (i.e., virginity) on the part of the woman is an essential element of the crime of seduction as defined under Article 443 of the Penal Code, which punishes the seduction of a “virgin.” Citing legal authorities and dictionaries, the Court defined a “virgin” as a woman who has had no carnal knowledge of man. It emphasized that the requirement pertains to the woman’s actual physical condition and past chaste conduct, not merely her reputation or the seducer’s belief about her chastity. Since the evidence conclusively showed that Aniceta Saldivia was not a virgin at the time she began relations with Suan, having previously consented to illicit intercourse with others, the crime of seduction was not committed. The defendant’s ignorance of her prior unchaste life did not transform the act into seduction. The offense, if any, would constitute simple fornication, which was not punishable under the penal laws at the time.