Babanto vs Zosa

The victim, Leonida Dagohoy, a 13-year old girl of considerably low mentality, was seated in the
market when accused, Eusebio Babanto, a policeman, approached and held her right hand and brought
her to the ABC Hall. There was no one in the ABC Hall and it was dark. When they arrived there, accused
made her lie down with her face upward. While in that position, accused lifted the girls dress and
removed her panty. The girl tried to kick him but he held her down. The accused exposed his penis, laid
down on top of the girl and commenced the sexual act. Afterwards, he threatened to shoot her if she
was going to tell her parents and left. The girl felt pain in her vagina which emitted blood. She confided
her ordeal to her mother after the latter observed her to be weak and feverish. Initially, accused was
charged with rape but the RTC found him guilty of the lesser offense of qualified seduction due to lack of
violence or intimidation.

Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting accused of qualified seduction.

Yes.

The complaint alleged that the accused abused his position as a policeman, that Leonida
Dagohoy was of the tender age of 13, and that the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant.
However, there is no allegation that the complainant was a "virgin". It is true that virginity is presumed if
the girl is over 12 and under 18 years of age, is unmarried and of good reputation. The presumption
notwithstanding, virginity is still an essential element of the crime of qualified seduction and must be
alleged in the complaint. A conviction for the crime of qualified seduction without the allegation of
virginity would violate the petitioner's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.

In the instant case, considering the age, mental abnormality, and deficiency of the complainant
plus the fact that the accused-petitioner was at the time of the incident in uniform and with a side arm,
there was sufficient intimidation to convict for rape. The fact that the complainant kicked the accused-
petitioner while the latter was lifting her dress and removing her panty and that she cried afterwards
negate any consent on her part to the sexual intercourse.
 Perez vs CA (1988)

On 21 October 1974, Yolanda Mendoza filed a criminal complaint for Consented Abduction
against petitioner Eleuterio Perez in the CFI of Pampanga Br. VI for having sexual intercourse with her
twice but reneged on his promise to marry her. Subsequently, he was convicted for the same. On
appeal, the CA reversed and acquitted Perez of Consented Abduction. On 22 July 1983, the same
complainant charged Perez of Qualified Seduction in the MTC of Pampanga Br. VI. Perez filed a motion
to quash invoking double jeopardy and waiver and/or estoppel on the part of complainant but was
denied. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Following a series of unsuccessful judicial
remedies, Perez filed a petition for review as his last resort.

Are Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction separate and distinct offenses in that
petitioner may not properly invoke the constitutional right against double jeopardy?

Yes. The very nature of these two offenses would negate any identity between them as would
make applicable the rule on double jeopardy.

It is true that the two offenses for which petitioner was charged arose from the same facts. This,
however, does not preclude the filing of another information against him if from those facts, two
distinct offenses, each requiring different elements, arose. An examination of the elements of these two
crimes would show that although they may have arisen from the same set of facts, they are not identical
offenses as would make applicable the rule on double jeopardy.

There are similar elements between Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction, namely: (1)
that the offended party is a virgin, and, (2) that she must be over twelve (12) and under eighteen (18)
years of age. However, two elements differentiate the two crimes. Consented Abduction, in addition to
the two common elements, requires that: (1) the taking away of the offended party must be with her
consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the offender, and, (2) the taking away of the offended party
must be with lewd designs. On the other hand, an information for Qualified Seduction also requires that:
(1) the crime be committed by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship, and, (2) the offender has
sexual intercourse with the woman.