[ G.R. No. 9768. February 20, 1915 ] 29 Phil. 570
[ G.R. No. 9768. February 20, 1915 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EULALIO MORELOS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
The defendant is charged with the crime of having violated his duty in relation of prisoners, while he was acting as warden or alcaide of the Tondo police station of the city of Manila. The complaint alleges:
“That on or about September 18, 1913, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said Eulalio Morelos, being a duly appointed and qualified policeman, and as such acting as warden, jailer, and person charged with the care and vigilance of the prisoners that were then in the prisoners’ cells of the police station of Tondo of said city, and among which prisoners was one Tomasa Clemente, did willfully, and criminally and taking advantage of the fact that the said Tomasa Clemente was asleep in one of the cells mentioned, approach her, place himself upon her, insert his sexual organ and male member in the genital organs of said offended woman, and have carnal intercourse with her, demanding her love, making unchaste proposals to her, and proposing to her illicit sexual relations and connections; in violation of the law.”
Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arrested, arraigned, pleaded not guilty, was tried, found to be guilty, and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three years six months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, and to pay the costs, in accordance with the provisions of article 380 of the Penal Code, and for a period of eleven years and one day of inhabililacion temporal especial. From that sentence the defendant appeals to this court. In this court the appellant presents two questions, one of fact and one of law. The question of fact presented by the appellant relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the complaint. The question of law relates to the application of article 380 to the facts in the present case. That Tomasa Clemente, the offended person, was a prisoner in the Tondo police station on the night of the 18th of September, 1913, and for two or three days theretofore, is a fact not denied; that the accused was in charge of the prisoners in said police station on the night of said day, is a fact not disputed; that the defendant entered the cell of Tomasa Clemente on the night in question and had illicit relations with her, is a fact fully sustained by the proof. Article 380 provides:
“Any warden (alcaide) who shall solicit any woman in his custody, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional, in its medium and maximum degrees. “If the woman solicited be the wife, daughter, or sister, or a relative within the same degree of affinity, of any person in the custody of such warden (alcaide), the penalty shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium degrees. “In every case a penalty ranging from temporal special disqualification in its maximum degree to perpetual special disqualification, shall also be imposed.”
It will be noted under said law that the same applies to any warden (alcaide) “who shall solicit any woman in his custody.” and that he shall suffer the penalty prescribed by the law. The appellant argues that he was not the warden or alcaide and, therefore, said article does not apply to him. The word “warden” or “alcaide,” as used in said article, is used in a most general sense. From an examination of the word “warden” or “alcaide,” both in the English and Spanish dictionaries, we find that it means a person who has charge of prisoners. In our opinion the word is used in that general signification in said article 380, and that the same is therefore applicable to the defendant. The appellant further argues that the proof fails to show that he had solicited a woman in his custody. It was proven, however, that his illicit relations had been consummated. It would be a strange interpretation to place upon said law, that a failure in the proof to show a “solicitation” was sufficient to relieve the defendant from responsibility, when the act solicited had been consummated. In our opinion said article 380 is applicable to the facts in the present case. For all of the foregoing reasons, the sentence of the lower court should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs. Arellano, C. J., Torres and Araullo, JJ., concur. CARSON, J., dissents.