CASE #32
His
PEOPLE VS CUESTA
G.R. Nos. 138545-46 - April 16, 2002
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Joey Dela Cuesta Ramos was charged before the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City with the crime of rape and acts of lasciviousness
committed against his niece, Frances Grace Alcido, 11 years old.
That on January 3, 1998, at about 1:00 in the morning Joey dela Cuesta carried
her to the room upstairs and inside the room; he removed her short pants and
kissed her organ. Then he spread her legs and inserted his organ into hers. She
felt pain. She, however, could not do anything as her uncle was holding her
hands. Accused-appellant went down after satisfying his lust.
Private complainant added that she did not tell anybody about the sexual
assault because her uncle threatened to kill her if she did. Again on January 13,
1998, at about 12:00 midnight, her aunt, Imelda dela Cuesta, caught accused-
appellant kissing her private part while she was asleep. She again cried when
she saw her uncle molesting her.
In her sworn statement, she said that accused-appellant would abuse her
whenever she was left alone in the house. She likewise testified that she
underwent medical examination at the National Bureau of Investigation.
Accused-appellant also took the witness stand and denied violating the person
of private complainant. He denies such act and said that he was sleeping in the
evening of January 3, 1998. He went to bed at 10:00 p.m. and woke up at 8:00
in the morning of the following day. He said that he slept on the wooden bed
while private complainant slept on the folding cot near the foot of the wooden
bed.
He likewise denied the second charge of acts of lasciviousness allegedly
committed on January 13, 1998. That he was sleeping on the evening of Jan.
13, 1998 when his mother roused him from sleep to check on her niece, Erika,
who was crying. Erika is the daughter of his sister, Imelda. He took Erika to his
arms to pacify her. When Imelda came home, and saw him carrying Erika, she
shouted at him and commanded him to go down. He left the room and went
back to bed. Accused-appellant said that he and Imelda have always been at
odds with each other. He said that Imelda would always get angry at him
whenever he would go up to the second floor of the house and she would
always blame him for lost things. She would always prod him to work and to
help around the house, but he could not do so because of his handicap.
right foot suffered from polio.
ISSUE: WON THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF RAPE OR ACT OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS
HELD:
Upon medical investigation, it was found out that the hymen of the offended
party is still intact however a torn hymen is not an essential element of the crime
of rape, such finding would be material to this case since the testimony of
another prosecution witness clouds the veracity of complainant's assertion that
she was raped. In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by four well-
established principles:
(1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility;
(2) it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though
innocent, to disprove;
(3) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two
persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution;
(4) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits
and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for
the defense.
The Court has thoroughly examined the prosecution evidence and we find it
insufficient to prove the element of carnal knowledge. The totality of the
evidence does not satisfy the quantum of proof required in criminal cases which
is proof beyond reasonable doubt. We cannot convict accused-appellant for the
crime of rape.
Nonetheless, although it was not established that accused-appellant had carnal
knowledge of private complainant, the evidence showed that he touched private
complainant's private parts while the latter was deep in sleep. Such act
constitutes acts of lasciviousness penalized under Article 366 of the Revised
Penal Code. The elements of the crime of acts of lasciviousness are:
(1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2) that it is done (a) by using force or intimidation or (b) when the
offended party is under 12 years of age; and
(3) that the offended party is another person of either sex.
All the elements of the offense are present in this case.
As regards the second charge in Criminal Case No. 98-0095 for acts of
lasciviousness, we find that the prosecution sufficiently proved the same. Imelda
Dela Cuesta, accused-appellant's sister, also testified that on January 13, 1998,
she caught accused-appellant kneeling in front of complainant who was then
sleeping. His head was bowed down toward complainant's private part. The
defense has not shown any evil motive on Imelda's part to fabricate such story
against her own brother and expose her own niece and her own family to public
scandal were it not her intention to seek redress for her young niece. Although
accused-appellant averred that he and his sister had constant disagreements,
such is not sufficient reason for her to falsely charge him with a criminal offense
which would send him to prison.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court finds accused-appellant GUILTY of two (2)
counts of acts of lasciviousness. In Criminal Case No. 98-0094, he is sentenced
to six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional as maximum. In Criminal Case No. 98-0095, he
is likewise sentenced to another six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum. He is
further ordered to pay private complainant the amount of P75,000.00 as moral
damages.
CASE #33
PEOPLE VS SANICO
G.R. NO 208849 AUGUST 13, 2014
FACTS:
There were two acts of crime committed by the accused (1) Acts of
Lasciviousness (Criminal Case No. 12021) and (2) Rape (Criminal Case No.
12022)
In 2005, AAA was raped at around 2:00 p.m. while she was washing dishes in
the kitchen. Nobody else was around the house except her and the accused; the
latter then approached and held her hands tightly. She boxed the accused-
appellant, but he pushed her. Thereafter, he threatened to kill her if she would
shout. Knowing that the accused-appellant was a pig butcher, AAA was
overcome by fear. He then succeeded in removing her clothes and
undergarments and pushing her against the wall. He took off his short pants and
briefs and inserted his penis into her vagina for two to three minutes. She felt
pain. The accused-appellant then pulled up his short pants and laid down in the
sofa. AAA alleged that she was again raped for six or seven times, but she
endured the harrowing experiences in silence due to the accused-appellant’s
threat to kill her. She also dreaded the possibilities of quarrels and deaths,
which would ensue if her parents find out.
Again, on April 19, 2006, at around 1:00 p.m., AAA was napping in a room with
her niece. AAA woke up when she felt that the accused-appellant was touching
her. AAA rose and repeatedly boxed the accused-appellant, but the latter held
her tightly, pulled up her clothes and mashed her breast. Her father, CCC, was
just in another room at that time, but out of fear, AAA kept quiet. The accused
took off his short pants and inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina, the latter
resisted. Being merely built out of wood, the house shook, which caused CCC to
wake up. CCC lost consciousness for a short period of time when he caught the
accused-appellant performing lascivious acts on AAA. The accused-appellant
then seized the opportunity to flee.
At around 4:00 p.m. on the same day, Dr. Orais performed a medico- genital
examination on AAA and found the latter to have suffered from sexual abuse.
AAA’s hymen is “coaptated” or slightly open and bore "old healed laceration.
The hymenal laceration was possibly caused by "an injury secondary to
intravaginal penetration by a blunt object". No human spermatozoa were found
in AAA’s vagina. Dr. Orais, however, explained that even in the presence of
seminal fluid, there are cases when no sperm can be found. Dr. Orais likewise
noted no physical or extra-genital injuries on AAA, but found ample evidence of
sexual intercourse having occurred more than one but less than four month/s
ago.
Version of the accused is that On April 19, 2006, the he was drinking with CCC,
AAA’s father, in the latter’s house lasting from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. As the
two were both drunk, the accused-appellant slept in the sala while CCC did so in
his room. He was awakened when AAA touched the former’s pocket to search
for money and got some money and coins and in turn, touched AAA’s chest and
asked the latter to remove her short pants. AAA complied. As the accused-
appellant was touching AAA’s breast, CCC woke up. Upon seeing what was
taking place, CCC got a bolo to hack the accused-appellant, but the latter
escaped. The accused-appellant testified that he had never inserted his penis in
AAA’s vagina. He admitted touching AAA on April 19, 2006 but he did so only
because the latter initiated it. He also claimed that he was very close to AAA
and he treated her as if she were his own child.
ISSUE: WON the accused beyond reasonable doubt guilty of rape in
Criminal Case no. 12022
HELD:
The accused-appellant argues that while the time of the commission of the
crime is not an essential element of rape, a complainant’s inability to give the
exact dates, during which she was allegedly raped, puts her credibility in
question. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought the dismissal of the
appeal; it contended that the accused-appellant’s denial of the charges against
him cannot prevail over AAA’s positive testimony. Further, the date of the
commission of rape becomes relevant only when the accuracy and truthfulness
of the complainant’s narration practically hinge thereon.
The contention of [the] accused-appellant that the rape allegedly committed on
April 19, 2006 was highly implausible because of the absence of fresh
lacerations and spermatozoa in AAA’s vagina is untenable. It should be
emphasized that [the] accused-appellant was charged [with] rape that occurred
sometime in 2005 and not on April 19, 2006. The fact that only old healed
lacerations were found does not negate rape.
The absence of spermatozoa is not a negation of rape. The presence or
absence of spermatozoa is immaterial since it is penetration, not ejaculation,
which constitutes the crime of rape.
Moreover, "[w]e have repeatedly held that when the offended parties are young
and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their
version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but
also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the
matter about which they testified were not true."
In the instant appeal, the RTC and the CA both found AAA’s testimony that she
was raped in 2005 as credible. AAA did not specifically refer to an exact month
and date when the sordid act was committed. Nonetheless, her testimony that
the accused-appellant threatened to kill her, pushed her to the wall and inserted
his penis in her vagina at around 2:00 p.m., while she was alone washing dishes
at home, was positive, clear and categorical.
In the case at bench, the commission of lascivious conduct was admitted by the
accused-appellant in his testimony. No issue regarding his conviction for
lascivious conduct hence, the penalty imposed by the RTC for lascivious
conduct should not be disturbed anymore. Necessarily then, the CA cannot
impose upon the accused-appellant a graver penalty and increase the amount
of damages awarded to AAA.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision dated November 19, 2012 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00769-MIN, is AFFIRMED with the
following MODIFICATIONS: (a) In Criminal Case No. 12021, the indeterminate
penalty of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of imprisonment as minimum to 6 years
as maximum imposed by the R TC upon the accused-appellant, and the award
in favor of AAA of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (₱25,000.00) as moral
damages and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (₱25,000.00) as exemplary
damages, are reinstated; and
(b) An interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum on all the damages
awarded to AAA in Criminal Case Nos. 12021 to 12022 is likewise imposed
upon the accused-appellant to be computed from the date of the finality of this
judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
CASE #34
QUIMVEL VS PEOPLE
G.R NO. 214497 APRIL 18, 2017
FACTS:
AAA, who was seven years old at the time of the incident, is the oldest
among the children of XXX and YYY. XXX worked as a household helper in
Batangas while YYY was a Barangay Tanod who derived income from
selling vegetables. AAA and her siblings, BBB and CCC, were then staying
with YYY in Palapas, Ligao City.
On the other hand, Quimvel, at that time, was the caretaker of the ducks of
AAA's grandfather. He lived with AAA's grandparents whose house was just
a few meters away from YYY's house. At around 8 o'clock in the evening of
[July 18,] 2007, YYY went out of the house to buy kerosene since there was
no electricity. While YYY was away, Quimvel arrived bringing a vegetable
viand from AAA's grandfather. AAA requested Quimvel to stay with them as
she and her siblings were afraid. He agreed and accompanied them. AAA
and her siblings then went to sleep. However, she was awakened when she
felt Quimuel's right leg on top of her body. She likewise sensed Quimvel
inserting his right hand inside her panty. In a trice, she felt Quimvel
caressing her private part. She removed his hand.
Quimvel was about to leave when YYY arrived. She asked him what he was
doing in his house. Quimvel replied that he was just accompanying the
children. After he left, YYY and his children went back to sleep.
On [July 29,] 2007, XXX arrived from Batangas. Later in the evening while
XXX was lying down with her children, she asked them what they were
doing while she was away. BBB told her that Quimvel touched
her Ate. When XXX asked AAA what Quimvel did to her, she recounted that
Quimvel laid down beside her and touched her vagina.
As expected, Quimvel denied the imputation hurled against him. He
maintained that he brought the ducks of AAA' s grandmother to the river at 7
o'clock in the morning, fetched it and brought it back at AAA's grandmother's
place at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of [July 18,] 2007. After that, he rested.
He said that he never went to AAA's house that evening. When YYY
confronted and accused him of touching AAA, he was totally surprised. Even
if he denied committing the crime, he was still detained at
the Barangay Hall. He was then brought to the police station for
interrogation. Eventually, he was allowed to go home. He did not return to
the house of AAA's grandmother to avoid any untoward incidents.
ISSUE: WON ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
HELD:
Petitioner contends that, granting without admitting that he is guilty of Acts of
Lasciviousness, he should only be held liable for the crime as penalized under
the RPC and not under RA 7610. According to him, to be held liable under the
latter law, it is necessary that the victim is involved in or subjected to prostitution
or other sexual abuse, and that the failure to allege such element constituted a
violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of
accusation against him. 12
It is fundamental that, in criminal prosecutions, every element constituting the
offense must be alleged in the Information before an accused can be convicted
of the crime charged. This is to apprise the accused of the nature of the
accusation against him, which is part and parcel of the rights accorded to an
accused.
HE FAILED TO ALLEGE IN THE INFORMATION OF THE CRIME HE
COMMITTED.
The Information must allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime
charged. The facts and circumstances necessary to be included therein are
determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific crimes.
No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an
accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the
information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein. To convict him
of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground
alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. The rule is that a variance
between the allegation in the information and proof adduced during trial
shall be fatal to the criminal case if it is material and prejudicial to the
accused so much so that it affects his substantial rights. (emphasis added)
In the case at bar, petitioner contends that the Information is deficient for failure
to allege all the elements necessary in committing Acts of Lasciviousness under
Sec. 5(b) of RA 9160.
Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. - Any person who shall commit any act
of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the
circumstances mentioned on the preceding article, shall be punished
by prision correccional.
Conviction thereunder requires that the prosecution establish the following
elements:
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. That it is done under any of the following circumstances: 18
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority;
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or
is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present; and
3. That the offended party is another person of either sex.
Hypothetically admitting the elements of Art. 336 of the RPC, as well as the first
and third elements under RA 7610 - that a lascivious act was committed against
AAA who at that time was below twelve (12) years old - petitioner nevertheless
contends that the second additional element, requiring that the victim is a child
"exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, " is absent in this
case.
Clear from the records of the deliberation is that the original wording of Sec. 5 of
RA 7610 has been expanded so as to cover abuses that are not characterized
by gain, monetary or otherwise. In the case at bar, the abuse suffered by AAA
squarely falls under this expanded scope as there was no allegation of
consideration or profit in exchange for sexual favor. As stated in the Information,
petitioner committed lascivious conduct through the use of ''force" and
"intimidation."
The first element refers to the acts of lasciviousness that the accused performs
on the child. The second element refers to the special circumstance that the
child (is) exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. This
special circumstance already exists when the accused performs acts of
lasciviousness on the child. In short, the acts of lasciviousness that the accused
performs on the child are separate and different from the child's exploitation in
prostitution or subjection to "other sexual abuse."
Under Article 336 of the RPC, the accused performs the acts of lasciviousness
on a child who is neither exploited in prostitution nor subjected to "other sexual
abuse." In contrast, under Section 5 of RA 7610, the accused performs the acts
of lasciviousness on a child who is either exploited in prostitution or subjected
to "other sexual abuse."
Let us not forget the circumstances of this case, not only was the offense
committed against a child under twelve (12) years of age, it was committed
when the victim was unconscious, fast asleep in the dead of the night. AAA,
then a minor of seven (7) years, was awoken by the weight of petitioner's leg on
top of her and of his hand sliding inside her undergarment. His hand proceeded
to caress her womanhood, which harrowing experience of a traumatic torment
only came to a halt when she managed to prevent his hand from further
touching her private parts.
As regards the second additional element, it is settled that the child is deemed
subjected to other sexual abuse when the child engages in lascivious conduct
under the coercion or influence of any adult. Intimidation need not necessarily
be irresistible. It is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation
annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party. The law
does not require physical violence on the person of the victim; moral coercion or
ascendancy is sufficient. 
The petitioner's proposition-that there is not even an iota of proof of force or
intimidation as AAA was asleep when the offense was committed and, hence,
he cannot be prosecuted under RA 7610-is bereft of merit. When the victim of
the crime is a child under twelve (12) years old, mere moral ascendancy will
suffice.
The Court finds that because of the relative seniority of petitioner and the trust
reposed in him, petitioner abused the full reliance of AAA and misused his
ascendancy over the victim. These circumstances can be equated with
"intimidation" or "influence" exerted by an adult, covered by Sec. 5(b) of RA
7610. Ergo, the element of being subjected to sexual abuse is met.
CASE #35
CRUZ VS. PEOPLE
G.R NO. L-67228 OCTOBER 9, 1986
FACTS:
This petition for certiorari seeks to set aside the order of respondent Judge
Ernesto S. Tengco of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch VI, denying the
demurrer to evidence filed by herein petitioner.
The petitioner herein did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
habitually, with abuse of authority or confidence, promote or facilitate the
prostitution or corruption of TOINETTE MARIE RONQUILLO, a minor, 15 years
of age, to satisfy the lust of another.
Upon petitioner’s plea of not guilty, trials were held and during which the
prosecution presented three [3] witnesses and offered documentary evidence.
The three witnesses who testified for the prosecution were police officers of the
Western Police District. They testified on the complaint of Toinette Marie
Ronquillo against petitioner Cruz for illegal detention and physical injuries; the
raid on petitioner’s residence which revealed photographs of nude male and
female models, including those of the complainant; the arrest and investigation
of petitioner who did not give a written statement; the complainant’s affidavits
taken by the police; and the eventual filing of the complaint for corruption of
minors with the City Fiscal’s office.
The documentary evidence consisted of the two affidavits executed by the
complainant; 2 photos of the complainant Toinette Marie Ronquillo, in different
obscene poses; 3 receipt dated March 17, 1983 of the articles seized from
petitioner’s residence in the course of the raid; 4 the Booking Sheet and Arrest
Report prepared by the arresting officer; 5 and the police information report,
Because complainant Toinette Marie Ronquillo never appeared at any stage of
the proceedings nor testified in court despite the notices sent to her, the
prosecution was compelled to rest its case.
On April 2, 1984, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence which respondent
Judge Tengco denied in his order of April 16, 1984 "considering the grounds
alleged in the motion to dismiss [demurrer to evidence] not having been well-
taken."
Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari [Rule 65] claiming that the
denial of his demurrer to evidence is not in accordance with law and the
evidence.
ISSUE: WON the accused in a criminal case assail the denial of the demurrer to
evidence in a special civil action for certiorari?
HELD:
That it has been the long settled rule that certiorari does not lie to challenge the
trial court’s interlocutory order denying the accused’s motion to dismiss. The
appellate courts will not review in such special civil action the prosecution’s
evidence and decide in advance that such evidence has or has not yet
established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The orderly
procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court is for the accused to present his
evidence after which the trial court, on its own assessment of the evidence
submitted by both the prosecution and the defense, will then properly render its
judgment of acquittal or conviction. If the verdict is one of acquittal, the case
ends there. But if it is one of conviction, then appeal is the proper recourse.
Thus, it cannot be said that respondent Judge Tengco, in denying petitioner’s
motion to dismiss the criminal action against him for insufficiency of evidence,
gravely abused his discretion. His denial order finds ample support in our
jurisprudence. Verily, petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to the relief
prayed for.
ACCORDINGLY, the present petition for certiorari is dismissed. The challenged
order of respondent Judge Ernesto S. Tengco of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch VI, dated April 16, 1984 in Criminal Case No. 83-16152 entitled
People v. Simplicio Cruz y Lazaro, denying the demurrer to evidence [motion to
dismiss] by petitioner, is sustained. Said criminal case is ordered remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings. Petitioner is given the option to either
present his evidence or to submit the case for decision based solely on the
prosecution’s evidence.
CASE #36
ALIMANHO VS PEOPLE
FACTS:
Filomena de la Cruz , offended party, was employed in the house of Pita Alvero
at San Pablo City as a domestic helper. She came to know Francisca Alimagno,
accused, who was bringing money to her employer Pita Alvero and tried to
convince her to leave the house of Pita Alvero, promising her a better job. She
eventually succeeded in persuading Dela Cruz to leave the house and on
November 29, 1964, after leaving a written self-explanatory note which reads:
“Ako ho ay nagtanan kasama ko ay lalake.” – Your Utusan
Complainant then abandoned the house of her mistress and went with
defendants Francisca Alimagno and Jovita Melo in a jeep, together with a man
and a driver. Proceeded to Barrio Putol, San Pablo City, where she was brought
to a hut thereat and there allowed to be ravished by a man whom she saw for
the first time, after the latter had covered her mouth with a rag and tied her
hands, so that she was rendered speechless and helpless from offering any
resistance, so much so that he was able to satiate his lust with her until 12:00
o'clock midnight.
Thereafter, she was brought by the man to the house of defendant Jovita Melo
only to be transferred later to the house of defendant Francisca Alimagno,
where she stayed for more or less three days until she was found there and
taken back by Leovigildo Perez and Pita Alvero. The two thereafter brought her
to the Police Department for the corresponding investigation.
ISSUE: WON THE CA ERRED IN CONVICTING THEM OF THE CRIME OF
CORRUPTION OF MINOR
HELD:
NO. Petitioners contention to the court was that even before the crime was
committed complainant Filomena de la Cruz was already a corrupted person
and therefore she could no longer be the victim of the crime of "Corruption of
Minors" penalized by Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code.
However, this argument is clearly untenable. Complainant, who does not know
how to read and write vehemently denied the contents of Exh. 1, saying that it
was not the statement she gave to the police. Indeed, she testified that previous
to the incident, she did not have any coition with any man and the trial court so
believed her. Article 340 does not prescribe that the persons corrupted be
of good reputation.
With regard to the letter (Exh. A), appellant Francisca Alimagno admitted having
written the same out of pity to the complainant Filomena de la Cruz. But, if she
had nothing to do with complainant's sexual adventure, it is strange why she
wrote said letter, containing false averments, and then took the complainant
away from the house of Pita Alvero, without the knowledge and consent of the
latter. She, being a friend of Pita Alvero, should have known that her actuation in
writing the letter was ill-advised and morally wrong. Her admission that she
wrote the same clearly indicates her plan to facilitate or promote the prostitution
or corruption of the complainant.
Appellant Francisca Alimagno testified that the witness for the prosecution
Leovigildo Perez was demanding P5,000.00 from her and later was reduced to
P2,000.00 (tsn. p. 83, April 22, 1966) to quash the case against her. On cross-
examination, she (Francisca Alimagno) said that Perez was asking the aforesaid
amount on the ground floor of the Secret Service Division.
If there is truth on the matter that Leovigildo Perez was extorting money from
her (Francisca Alimagno) for the purpose of quashing the case, appellant
Alimagno should have reported or denounced immediately to the police such
attitude of Perez. The truth, however, is that it was appellant Alimagno who
made an offer of P50.00 to Leovigildo Perez to drop the case against her.
appellants made an offer of compromise for the settlement of the case. These
overtures made by the appellants to have the case settled out of court are
indicative of a guilty conscience and it is well-settled in this jurisdiction that an
offer of compromise is an evidence of guilt.

On the question raised that petitioners could not be guilty of the crime of
corruption because the offended party is more than eighteen years of age at the
time the alleged offense is committed, the point to consider is whether "under
age" means below eighteen or twenty-one years old. Article 340 of the Revised
Penal Code provides:

Any person who shall habitually or with abuse of authority or confidence,

promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of persons under age to satisfy
the lust of another, shall be punished by...

However, We take note of the recommendation of the Solicitor General that with
respect to petitioner Jovita Melo who was found guilty as accomplice in a
consummated crime where the penalty is arresto mayor, medium and maximum
periods (2 months and 1 day to 6 months), and where there is no modifying
circumstances present, the penalty in its medium period should be imposed, or
not less than 3 months and 11 days nor more than 4 months and 20 days.
Otherwise stated, the petitioner Jovita Melo should suffer the penalty of 4
months and 20 days, instead of 6 months of arresto mayor.

WHEREFORE, with the modification above indicated, the decision of the Court
of Appeals is AFFIRMED. With costs.