G.R. No. 28144 - People vs. Mariano

The People of the Philippine Islands instituted criminal proceedings against Vicente Mariano for the crime of abuse against chastity.
At trial in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the accused was convicted and sentenced to three years, six months and twenty-one days of prision correctional along with the accessories of the law and costs.

On August 3, 1927, after the conviction, the accused filed a motion for the dismissal of the case.
He supported his motion by submitting a marriage certificate to demonstrate that he had wed the offended party.
The marriage is undisputed and evidenced properly within the record.

The Attorney-General opposed the motion by invoking provisions of article 448 of the Penal Code and, more importantly, Act No. 1773 of the Philippine Legislature which amended said article.
The opposition centered on the contention that the marriage of the accused to the offended party does not extinguish his criminal liability for the crime charged.

The focal legal question was whether Section 2 of Act No. 1773, which states that a legal marriage in cases of estupro, rapto, or violation shall extinguish criminal liability, includes the crime of abuse against chastity.
The case required interpreting the scope and the legislative intent behind Act No. 1773, especially as it relates to crimes traditionally classified alongside rape.
It was noted that while the Penal Code designates rape in Article 438 and abuse against chastity in Article 439, both crimes belong to the same chapter (Title 9, Book II) and share similar elements except for the specific intention to lie that is essential in rape.

The majority opinion referenced Spanish legal commentators like Mr. Pacheco, who noted the related nature of the crimes when describing abuse against chastity.
The court referred to prior case law where complaints alleging consummated, frustrated, or attempted rape—though not fitting the complete elements of rape—resulted in convictions for abuse against chastity.
This discussion helped frame the inquiry on whether abuse against chastity should follow the same rule of extinguished liability upon marriage.

Does the legal marriage of the accused with the offended party extinguish his criminal liability for the crime of abuse against chastity under Section 2 of Act No. 1773?

Is abuse against chastity to be considered within the ambit of “rape” as mentioned in the proviso of Section 2 of Act No. 1773, given that the same chapter of the Penal Code covers both offenses?
What is the legislative intent behind including certain crimes (such as rape, estupro, or rapto) for the extinction of liability, and should this doctrine be extended to abuse against chastity even if not explicitly named?

How should the court reconcile the majority view which includes abuse against chastity under the dismissed category by marriage with the dissenting view that highlights the absence of explicit legislative inclusion of abuse against chastity?
To what extent may judicial interpretations of related Spanish commentaries influence the construction of local statutory provisions under Act No. 1773?