Facts:

• The case involves the United States as the plaintiff and Saturnino Capillo and Petrona Paduga as the defendants.
• The events occurred on August 12, 1913, in Manila, Philippine Islands.
• Capillo and Paduga were accused of exposing Capillo's legitimate child, a one-month-old infant, to lose his civil status.
• The prosecution alleged that Capillo, in conspiracy with Paduga, took the child without the consent of the mother, Vicenta Umanbang.
• They intended to deliver the child to Chua Pue Tee, with plans to never reclaim it.
• They sought a loan of P150 from Chua Pue Tee for expenses related to Umanbang's illness and death, ultimately receiving P106.
• The prosecution argued that this act could render the child an unknown child or the child of Chua Pue Tee.
• On August 21, 1913, the defendants pleaded not guilty.
• On September 1, 1913, their counsel filed a motion similar to a demurrer, claiming the information lacked sufficient facts to constitute a crime under Article 468 of the Penal Code.
• The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the case, agreeing that the information did not state sufficient facts to constitute a crime.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the information did not state sufficient facts to constitute the crime charged.
• The court held that the defendants' actions did not fall under Article 468 of the Penal Code, which pertains...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of "expusiere" (to expose) as used in Article 468 of the Penal Code.
• The term was understood in the context of abandonment, supported by historical and linguistic analysis.
• The statute was intended to penalize acts of abandonment leading to th...continue reading