G.R. No. 6729 - People vs Fideldia

The case involves the defendant, a youth aged 18, who was attending school in Manila and residing in the house of his uncle.
The incident took place in connection with his interactions with his cousin, a daughter of his uncle.

The defendant induced his cousin to leave her home without the consent of her father, commanding her to accompany him.
The girl was taken to the home of the defendant’s father (who was also her uncle) to spend a vacation lasting two to three months.
During her stay at the uncle’s home, she engaged in illicit relations with the defendant.

The charge levied against the defendant was for the crime of “rapto” (abduction), as defined in Article 446 of the Penal Code.
Article 446, at the time, prescribed that the abduction of a virgin between the ages of 12 and 23, even with her consent, was punishable by prision correctional in its minimum and medium degrees.
It is noted within the case that the legislator originally had in mind the strict control exercised by fathers or guardians over females below the age of 23 under the older regime.

Article 445 deals with the abduction of a woman against her will with lewd designs, while Article 446 covers the abduction of a virgin over 12 and under 23 even if she consented.
With a change in sovereignty and corresponding modifications in the legal status of women, the age of consent for marriage without the father's approval was subsequently lowered to 18.
This statutory change implies that the age limit in Article 446 for abduction, with the woman’s consent, should similarly be adjusted to reflect the current legal norm (i.e., 18 rather than 23).

The defendant was convicted in the lower court for the crime of abduction under Article 446.
The prosecution’s case was based on the fact that the victim was abducted with her own consent, yet without the consent of her father, falling under the statutory description of abduction as then defined.

Whether the legal definition and age limit set out in Article 446 of the Penal Code should be interpreted in light of the change in the legal status of women (i.e., the lowering of the age for marriage without parental consent from 23 to 18).

Whether the defendant’s act of inducing his cousin to leave her home qualifies as abduction under the revised understanding of the statutory age limit.
Whether the fact that the victim was over 18 nullifies the application of Article 446 to his conduct.

Whether the evidence sufficiently establishes that the woman was within the age limit (originally 12 to 23) required for the imposition of the abduction charge under Article 446.
Whether the absence of proof regarding her age being below 18 undermines the prosecution’s case.