Tuozo, Lourdes Clouie D.

14-2867
Case No.200
People of the Philippines v Mariano Fontanilla
G.R. No. L-25354, June 28, 1968
Castro, J.;

Facts:
Fe Castro, fifteen-year old virgin, was brought by her mother to the house of Fontanilla and to
serve as a helper. One night, a week after she arrived, Fontanilla intruded her bedroom and
engaged in sexual intercourse with her. She was then aged over 12 years old but below 18. The
accused made amorous overtures and advances towards her prior this incident. The accused
succeeded in having repeated carnal knowledge of her for 3 months. Fe repeatedly acquiesced to
Fontanilla’s desires due to the latter’s promises of marriage, and intimidation. One day,
Fontanilla’s wife caught them in flagrante on the kitchen floor. Fe then returned home and
revealed everything to her mother.
Fontanilla denied having carnal knowledge of her. He also contended that Fe’s testimony is hazy
and self-contradictory. He argued that if it is true that he repeatedly promised to marry her, why
would she continue engaging in sexual relations with him when it became clear that he does not
mean to make good on his promise.

Issue:
Whether the crime of qualified seduction was committed.

Ruling:
Yes
Article 337 of the RPC states that:
Qualified seduction. — The seduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen
years of age, committed by any person in public authority, priest, home-servant,
domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted with
the education or custody of the woman seduced, shall be punished by prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods.
Even though there is no evidence to support the claim of marital promise, deceit, although an
essential element in ordinary or simple seduction, does not need to be proved in a charge of
qualified seduction. It is replaced by abuse of confidence. When the offender is a public officer,
a priest or minister, a servant, domestic, tutor, teacher, or under any title is in charge of the
education or keeping of the offended woman, as in the present case, the act is punishable
although fraud or deceit may not have been used or, if employed, has not been proved.