37. People v Crisostomo G.R. No. L-19034 February 17, 1923 Hence this appeal.

Appeal from a judgment of the CFI Cavite WON the appellants are guilty of abduction through violence
Held: No. Guilty only of illegal detention
Reyes J. (1) The manner of eloping planned, according to the defense, by Macaria
Gabriel, is improbable:
FACTS: the offended party was 30 years' age, she must be presumed more
After 8 or 9 am of Dec 26, 1920, while Macaria Gabriel and her aunt Candida reflexive and cautions in carrying out a preconceived plan than a young
Acua were walking in the direction of their houses from that of Gregoria woman,
Acua, to whom Macaria had paid the sum of P30, Pedro Crisostomo met them she would not have done so in the daytime
on the way. she would not have gone in company with Candida Acua
In view of her age, she would have naturally enjoyed a certain degree of
Pedro Crisostomo, Lorenzo Alcoba, and Casimiro Garde dragged Macaria Gabriel
liberty such as to go, as she did, to the barrio of Salinas, Bacoor, from her
along and took her against her will to a rice field. Macaria Gabriel cried for help
residence in Palicot, Imus; with which liberty she could have planned
and proffered insults to the appellants.
and carried into effect with full success her escape from the parental
house.
The other defendants, Segundo Espiritu, Primitivo Alcoba, and Bartolome
Caguiat, caught hold of Candida Acua, thus preventing her from helping her
(2) Pedro Crisostomo spontaneously, admitted to Lieutenant Sotto of the
niece.
Constabulary having, with his companions, deemed it advisable to abduct
Macaria, in view of the fact that she firmly answered in the negative to his
Gregoria Acua, attracted by the cries of Candida, repaired to the place and,
proposal and, on another occasion, he requested Epifanio Gabriel, another
with a club attacked those who were holding Candida, and they lastly released
brother of the offended party, to intervene in his favor and that he considered
her.
the fault committed by him as an offense not only against Macaria but also
against her family.
As soon as Candida Acua was released by her aggressors, she went to the house
of Macaria Gabriel and reported the matter to the latter's brother, Constantino,
Conclusion: defendants took away Macaria Gabriel against her will.
who ran after the abductors of his sister overtaking them when they had just
released her, which they did upon seeing Constantino.
(3) However, the element of unchaste designs was not proven.
(3.1) Pedro Crisostomo testified that his intention in eloping with Macaria was to
The appellants were prosecuted and tried in the CFI Cavite.
get married with her in Bacoor. This intention to marry does not constitute
unchaste designs as it appears that either of them had no impediment to
Defense:
contracting a marriage.
There was an agreement between Macaria and Pedro to elope.
Viada, in defining abduction under the old Spanish laws, says in general as
The court found Pedro Crisostomo, Lorenzo Alcoba, and Casimiro Garde guilty as
follows:
principals, and Segundo Espiritu, Primitivo Alcoba, and Bartolome Caguiat as
accomplices, of the consummated crime of abduction through violence.
By abduction is meant the taking away of a woman from her house or the place
where she may be for the purpose of carrying her to another place with intent ARAULLO, C.J., AVANCEA and VILLAMOR, JJ., dissenting.
to marry or to corrupt her (libidinis causa). (1) it cannot be said that Macaria Gabriel merely thought she was kissed under
those circumstances, because she had then become, and was thereafter
But when, in explaining abduction through violence, he specifies the elements unconscious. As she testified, it clearly and evidently appears that the abuses of
constituting the same, he says: which she was a victim and the brutality with which she was treated by Pedro
Crisostomo and his companions were of such a nature that she fell unconscious
The elements constituting this crime are these: . . . 3. That it be committed with and one of those abuses was precisely the act of the accused Crisostomo having
unchaste designs, that is to say, with intent to abuse her. If such an intention been kissing her while she was absolutely incapacitated to repel it.
does not exist, the act will no longer constitute the crime of abduction, but a
crime against liberty, or that of illegal detention defined and punished in article (2) What would then be the meaning of the kisses made by the accused to
495 and following of this Code. Macaria Gabriel while she was being carried in their arms and dragged along by
Lorenzo Alcoba and Casimiro Garde to a rice field, that is to say, to a place where
Consequently, the unchaste designs that constitute the essential elements of the they might be away from the reach of her family or from being seen by any
crime of abduction through violence is the intention to abuse the abducted person?
woman.
(3) In the case of United States vs. Ramirez, it was held that: "In a criminal action
(3.2) the testimony of Macaria that, while the accused and his two companions for abduction, in order to demonstrate the presence of the lewd designs, actual
held her and dragged her along, he kissed her many times against her will, illicit criminal relations with the person abducted need not be shown. The intent
unreliable. to seduce the girl is sufficient. The evil purpose need not be established by
She herself said that she was seasick and unconscious then positive evidence but may be inferred from acts or conduct proved.
It does not appear from the evidence that outside of those supposed
kissings, the accused or any of them ever committed any slight Appellants guilty of the crime of abduction through violence
unchaste act with the offended woman during the whole time in
which she was in their hands

Others: in view of the simultaneous act of the defendants three seizing

Macaria Gabriel and the other three getting hold of her companion to prevent
her from helping Macaria in any manner possible, which is a joint act and tends
to the same end, to wit, that of illegally depriving Macaria of her liberty it
cannot be conceived that there was no agreement between the defendants and,
for this reason, said act constitutes in itself evident and sufficient proof of the
conspiracy and confederacy.

DECISION: guilty of of the crime of illegal detention