You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cd3d?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[US v. PEDRO BANILA](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cd3d?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:cd3d}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 6624, Mar 20, 1911 ]

US v. PEDRO BANILA +

DECISION

19 Phil. 130

[ G. R. No. 6624, March 20, 1911 ]

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO BANILA, RUFINO MARASIGAN, AND FAUSTO BALTONADO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

D E C I S I O N

TRENT, J.:

The defendants and  appellants were each sentenced by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tayabas, Hon. Mariano Cui presiding,  for the crime of rapto, to .seventeen years, four months,  and one day of reclusion temporal, to the corresponding accessory penalties,  to jointly and severally indemnify the offended party in the sum of P500, and to pay an equal  proportion of the costs of the cause.

On the afternoon of June  19,  1910, a large banca, or sailboat, the property of one Pedro Elmido, and manned by various persons,  among: whom  were the  defendants Rufino Marasigan and Pedro Banila, anchored near the beach within the jurisdiction of the town of Sariaya, Province of Tayabas. After having discharged  its cargo, and taken aboard  the cargo for the return  trip, its owner, Pedro Elmido, thinking it time to sail, asked Rufino Marasigan, who was the piloto of the boat, if he were  not going to give the order to sail. Rufino replied that it would be better to wait until night for  the wind to change from the land.  He Also stated that he and his companions  were waiting for  a married couple who were going to take passage that night.  He then  disembarked and went  in the direction of the town.  Shortly thereafter he returned, bringing with him a trunk, petate, and a bolo and placed them aboard.

On that same night, Sunday the 19th of June, 1910, four men went to the casita which was inhabited by the offended party, Crisanta Tisico, a young single girl about twelve years of age, her brother Fortunato, and her grandmother, Juana Onlayao, who was about  sixty years  of  age.  This small house was situated in the barrio of Castaiias, town of Sariaya.  These men having awakened the old lady, Juana, she ordered  her grandson, Fortunato, to go  out and learn what the people who were calling desired.  On going outside of the house, Fortunato recognized the defendants Benito Manibo (who was sentenced and did not appeal), Fausto Baltonado, and Pedro Banila, and asked them  what they desired.   They replied by asking Fortunato who were in the house.  After having been informed that there wasn't anybody in the house except himself, his small  sister,  and his grandmother, they caught hold of his arms,  struck  and kicked him, and then carried him about ten meters from the house and tied him up to a tree, threatening him  with death if he screamed.  While the young boy was being tied Benito Manibo and Fausto Baltonado entered the house  and began striking the old lady Juana with the flat side of their bolos. Pedro  then caught Crisanta by her knees while  she was sleeping1 and started to raise her up.  Crisanta awoke and resisted Pedro, striking  him with her  hand.  Pedro then started to drag her from the house  and she caught hold of her grandmother and when she did  this Fausto struck her across the  wrist with the flat side  of his bolo.  Then Pedro dragged her out and  turned her over  to Benito Manibo.   Benito then carried her along, being followed by Pedro, and after having gone some few yards from the house they forced her to go along by pulling her by the hands. The little girl attempted to scream but was prevented from doing so by Benito placing his hand over her mouth.  Benito and Pedro took the girl to the beach and placed her aboard the sailboat.  Within a very few minutes Rufino and Fausto arrived and went  aboard.   The boat was then put under way for Lobo, Batangas.  Immediately after these four men left the house, which  was about  twelve  o'clock at night, Juana  Onlayao went to the house of the  lieutenant of the barrio and reported this occurrence and exhibited the bruises or contusions which had been  inflicted upon her  at  that time.   She insisted on following these parties with the hope of obtaining the release of her grandchild, but  on account of her age and the condition of her eyes she was unable to make the trip that night.

When the boat was out at sea on that Sunday night, the defendant Pedro began threatening the little girl, Crisanta, saying  that if she  did  not agree to marry Benito Manibo, or live with him as his concubine, she would be thrown  into the sea.  When the banca arrived at a place called Laiya, it was  anchored to permit  Fausto Baltonado and his wife to disembark.  After this was done the trip was continued to  Lobo.  After leaving Laiya  and before reaching Lobo the little girl discovered that the defendants had taken her tampipi which  contained her clothes and a part  of  her brother's clothes, and also the  sum of P10 in cash.  This tampipi was later recovered, together with  the clothing, but the P10 were never  returned.  Before reaching Lobo the owner of the boat, Pedro  Elmido, became suspicious that the little girl was being abducted,  he  having  heard  the defendants threatening her, and immediately on arrival in Lobo he reported the matter to the lieutenant of the barrio, and the lieutenant reported to the municipal  president,  and an investigation was started which resulted in the arrest of these defendants.  The little girl was finally returned to her home after  seventeen days.

The facts above stated constitute the crime of abduction, as defined and punished by article 445 of  the Penal  Code, which article reads as follows:
"The  abduction of a woman,  executed against her will and with unchaste  designs, shall  be punished  with  the penalty  of reclusion temporal."
To constitute the crime of  abduction it is necessary to establish  two essential  elements: First, the act must be committed by force or  violence; and, second,  it must be done with unchaste designs  (miras deshonestas).  As to the  first,  the above facts  show clearly  that the little  girl was taken from her home by means of  force and violence. The defendants did not only strike the offended party with the flat side of their bolos, but also struck the old lady Juana and the young man Fortunato.  The latter they tied to a coconut tree nearby for the purpose, no doubt, of preventing him from interfering in  any manner With the abduction of his sister.  The fact that Benito Manibo and his companions were trying to force the little girl to marry Benito, or live with him  as his concubine, shows clearly that the intention of the defendants in abducting the girl was to force her to have illicit intercourse with Benito.   Benito was a married man and well knew that he could not marry this little girl.

The defense attempted to establish, by the testimony of the defendants Benito and Rufino, that.the taking of the young girl was done by Benito alone arid with not only her consent but also that of her brother and grandmother.  This defense has entirely failed.  The testimony of the witnesses for the defense  has not overcome the direct and positive testimony  of the offended girl, which is corroborated  by her brother and grandmother, and also by the owner of the boat.  The latter testified that the four defendants returned to the boat  about  twelve o'clock on that  Sunday night, bringing with them this little girl.   The little girl specifically  and definitely  identified all of these defendants as having taken a direct part in forcibly taking her from tier home.

In the commission of  this crime there were present the generic aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and  the commission of the acts in the house of the  offended party, inasmuch  as  it has been shown  that the defendants  took advantage of the darkness of the night and the late hour to commit this brutal act.  No extenuating circumstances were present.

The judgment appealed from being strictly in accordance with the law and the merits of the case, the same is hereby affirmed: Provided, however,  That the appellants be also condemned to return to the offended family the PIO appropriated by them.  Costs will be taxes against the appellants.  So ordered.

Arellano, C, J,, Mapa, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.

tags