elements of simple seduction

to qualify for simple seduction..... should all the elements be present?
for example, I am 20 years old when the act was committed, i am single and never been married.will my case qualify for simple seduction? the element of deceit is present too...

Under Article 388 of the Revised Penal Code,
the elements of simple seduction are as follows:

1. That the offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
2. That she must be of good reputation, single or widow;
3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her; and
4. That it is committed by means of deceit.

all the elements must be present so if you are 20 years old
then there is no crime of simple seduction. however, other crimes
might have been committed as long as the elements are present

what crime would this case constitute:
i was 20 years old, had a boyfriend who promised me marriage so that he could sway me o have sexual intercourse with me... but he does not intend to fulfill this promise because he has another girlfriend...of more than 6 years.
we have been together for only two years....
he also have moral ascendancy over me.


will i be able to support a good case with these circumstances?

this may qualify as rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353)

ELEMENTS:
Rape is committed -
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a. through force, threat or intimidation;
b. when the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. by means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; or
d. when the offended party is under 12 years
of age or is demented, even though none
of the circumstances mentioned above be
present.

2. By any person who, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by
inserting
a. his penis into another person’s mouth or
anal orifice; or
b. any instrument or object, into the genital
or anal orifice of another person

this may be hard to prove because you are into a relationship
with the accused

why do you say he has moral ascendancy over you?

then consent nullifies everything?

in the case of rape... isn't it that the testimony of the aggrieved woman in the case is the best evidence to present in court?

moral ascendancy...
what if the situation happened in a training environment wherein the parties involved are of different level in the heirarchy... ie...upperclass and underclass?

what if the aggrieved woman pursue the case against this estranged boyfriend, what are his liabilities? criminal? civil?

when you are into a relationship with the accused, the latter may use "sweetheart defense." here are some cases decided by the Supreme Court

PEOPLE vs. JOEL AYUDA G.R. No. 128882.10/2/03
A "sweetheart defense," to be credible, should be
substantiated by some documentary or other
evidence of the relationship — like mementos, love
letters, notes, pictures and the like. Here, no such
evidence was ever presented by appellant.

PEOPLE vs. ACERO, G.R. Nos. 146690- 91.3/17/04
A defense based on “sweetheart theory” in rape
cases is not a defense at all in rape where the victim
is a mental retardate.

PEOPLE vs. OGA, G.R. No. 152302. 6/8/04
Sweetheart theory prevails as a defense in rape
when it casts reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
accused.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTHONY
SANDIG G.R. No. 143124. 7/25/03
The mere assertion of a love relationship does not
necessarily rule out the use of force to consummate
the crime of rape. A sweetheart cannot be forced to
have sex against her will. Definitely a man can
neither demand sexual gratification from a fiancée
nor employ violence upon her, on the pretext of love.

When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence over the girl, it is not necessary to put up determined resistance.

When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence over the girl, it is not necessary to put up determined resistance.

then the case could push thru?

the case may push thru but getting a conviction is another thing. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary so the outcome of the case depends on the evidence you will present like testimonial evidence and object evidence. If the accused created a doubt on the mind of the judge (ie. interposing sweetheart defense) then he may be acquitted

If you had intercourse because it was part of the hazing then the crime of rape was really committed but then again, you have to prove it through the evidence you will present