G.R. No. L-9405, December 24, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ADEL HERNANDEZ and JUAN BAUTISTA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Adel Hernandez, desiring to have carnal relations with Elena M. Santos, a 15-year-old virgin, conspired with Juan Bautista. Hernandez proposed marriage to the girl, and she agreed. On the appointed day, she was brought to a house on Calle Isaac Peral, where Juan Bautista, using the fictitious name “Aniceto de Castro,” pretended to be a Protestant minister and simulated a marriage ceremony before two women posing as witnesses. He issued a false marriage certificate (Exhibit A) falsely stating Elena’s age as 20. After the ceremony, Elena returned to her parents’ home. Later, after showing her mother the false certificate, her mother was convinced of the marriage’s validity and allowed Hernandez to live with Elena in their home as her husband. They cohabited for over two years, but Elena never conceived. The scheme was later discovered when a lawyer, reviewing the certificate, identified it as a simulation. An investigation by the secret service confirmed that Hernandez and Bautista had concocted the plan to deceive Elena so Hernandez could have sexual relations with her. A criminal complaint for seduction was filed against both.

The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted Hernandez of seduction and sentenced him to four months of arresto mayor, an endowment of P500 to the injured girl, and to recognize and support any offspring. It convicted Juan Bautista as an accomplice and imposed a fine. Both appealed. During the appeal, Juan Bautista withdrew his appeal.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for postponement of the trial.
2. Whether the crime committed was seduction.
3. What is the proper criminal liability and penalty for the accused?

RULING:
1. On Procedural Issue: The Supreme Court found no error. The accused had pleaded not guilty on July 7, 1913, were notified of the trial set for July 22 on July 15, and only requested a postponement at the start of the trial itself. They had sufficient time (more than the required two days) to prepare their defense.

2. On the Nature of the Crime: The Court agreed that Hernandez, through deception (the simulated marriage), succeeded in having carnal intercourse with the victim, which constitutes seduction. However, the Court further analyzed the acts of Juan Bautista. By pretending to be a Protestant minister and performing a simulated marriage ceremony, Bautista committed the separate crime of Usurpation of Functions under Article 382 of the Penal Code (performing acts pertaining to a person in authority without legal right).

3. On Criminal Liability and Penalty: The Court held that the crime charged was a complex crime of seduction committed by means of usurpation of functions. Juan Bautista was not a mere accomplice but a principal by direct cooperation, as his act of simulating the marriage was essential to the deception. Adel Hernandez was also a principal by inducement, as he directly instigated Bautista to commit the usurpation of functions to achieve the seduction.

Pursuant to Article 89 of the Penal Code on complex crimes, the penalty for the more serious crime (Usurpation of Functions) should be imposed in its maximum degree. The penalty for usurpation of functions is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The maximum degree of this penalty is two years, eleven months, and eleven days to four years and two months.

Regarding the order for Hernandez to recognize and support any offspring, the Court noted the victim’s uncontroverted testimony that she never became pregnant during their cohabitation. Therefore, there was no factual basis for such an order.

DISPOSITIVE:
The appeal of Juan Bautista was deemed withdrawn.
The judgment against Adel Hernandez was modified. He was sentenced to suffer two years, eleven months, and eleven days of prision correccional, to endow the injured girl with P500, and to pay one-half of the costs.