Title
People vs. Yap
Case
G.R. No. L-25176
Decision Date
Feb 27, 1968
Agapito Yap, Jr. appealed a conviction for simple seduction, arguing the information violated the rule against duplicity of offenses. The Supreme Court ruled the information charged a single offense, allowing amendment to remove abortion allegations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-25176)

Case Background

Yap was convicted for the alleged crime of simple seduction, which was said to occur on or about May 15, 1959, and subsequently involved multiple acts of sexual intercourse with Catalina Babol, a virgin aged between 12 and 18. Following his conviction, Yap appealed to the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, contesting the information presented against him which he argued implied multiple instances of seduction and also incorrectly included details of abortion.

Legal Issues

The primary issue in this appeal centered around the alleged duplicity of offenses in the information presented in the case, specifically whether the prosecution’s information violated the prohibition against duplicity as outlined in Section 12 of Revised Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The defense contended that the phrasing of the information allowed for the possibility of multiple convictions based on different acts of intercourse, each potentially qualifying as a distinct offense of seduction.

Arguments of the Parties

The defense maintained that the wording of the information—indicating acts "several times"—implied that Yap could be charged with multiple counts of seduction corresponding to each sexual encounter. Conversely, the prosecution contended that simple seduction is completed with the first act of sexual intercourse and that subsequent acts, while immoral, do not constitute additional charges under the law governing seduction. The prosecution further argued that the inclusion of the term "abortion" was unnecessary for the seduction charge.

Judicial Analysis

The court rejected both extreme positions asserted by the defense and the prosecution. It clarified that in cases of simple seduction, the relevant legal requirement does not necessitate that the offended party must be a virgin; rather, it suffices that the complainant is an unmarried woman of chaste life. The court further stated that simply because there were multiple acts of intercourse does not achieve the threshold of multiple offenses unless each act can be independently substantiated as an act of deceit.

Conclusion and Decision

Reviewing the information presente

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.