G.R. No. L-9768; February 20, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EULALIO MORELOS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant-appellant, Eulalio Morelos, was a policeman acting as the warden (alcaide) in charge of prisoners at the Tondo police station in Manila. He was charged with violating his duty in relation to prisoners. The complaint alleged that on or about September 18, 1913, Morelos, taking advantage of the fact that the prisoner Tomasa Clemente was asleep, inserted his sexual organ into her genitalia and had carnal intercourse with her, thereby making unchaste proposals and soliciting her while she was in his custody.

At trial, Tomasa Clemente testified that she was a prisoner detained for a violation of the Opium Law. She stated that on the third night of her detention, while she was asleep in her cell, Morelos entered and had sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge, awakening her only after he had finished. The trial court expressly rejected her claim that the act occurred while she was asleep, finding that the crime of rape was not proven. However, the court concluded that the case fell under Article 380 of the Penal Code, which punishes a warden who solicits a woman in his custody. The court convicted Morelos and sentenced him to prision correccional for three years, six months, and twenty-one days, and to inhabilitacion temporal especial for eleven years and one day. Morelos appealed, questioning both the sufficiency of the evidence and the applicability of Article 380 to him.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove that the appellant solicited and had carnal intercourse with Tomasa Clemente, a prisoner under his custody.
2. Whether Article 380 of the Penal Code applies to the appellant, considering his role as a policeman acting as a warden.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

1. On the Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court held that the fact of illicit intercourse was fully sustained by the proof. It noted that the appellant did not deny that Tomasa Clemente was a prisoner, that he was in charge of prisoners that night, or that he entered her cell and had illicit relations with her. The Court found no reason to reject the testimony of Tomasa Clemente, emphasizing that the law presumes a witness tells the truth unless the contrary is demonstrated.

2. On the Applicability of Article 380: The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that he was not a “warden” or “alcaide” as contemplated by Article 380. It interpreted the term in a general sense, meaning any person who has charge of prisoners. Therefore, as the policeman in charge of the prisoners at the station, the appellant fell within the scope of the article. The Court further held that the proof of consummated illicit relations necessarily included the element of solicitation. It would be an absurd interpretation, the Court reasoned, to acquit a defendant for lack of proof of “solicitation” when the very act solicited had been completed.

Thus, the penalty imposed by the lower court was affirmed.

Separate Opinion (Dissent):
Justice Trent dissented. He argued that the conviction rested solely on the testimony of Tomasa Clemente, which the trial court had found incredible regarding the claim of intercourse while asleep. He found her testimony inherently improbable and absurd on its face. In his view, convicting the appellant based on this testimony alone was unjustified.