Where the offender is the jail warden or the custodian of a woman prisoner, any relationship had by him with the woman prisoner even without any solicitation or advances of an immoral or indecent nature will bring about this crime because of the ascendancy that the jail warden or the custodian of the prisoner holds over the prisoner.
So even if the woman prisoner fell in love with the custodian, that is no justification for the custodian to establish some sexual or intimate relationship with her. Even if the warden responsible would be courting the prisoner, that would be covered by the prohibition. He can courts after the prisoner is no longer under his custody or she is no longer a prisoner. A prisoner is an accountability of the government.
So in a case where a woman was convicted and eventually made to serve sentence. While serving sentence, she was being visited by religious sisters or nuns bringing her some religious articles. The nuns noticed as days and months passed by, the prisoner is becoming pregnant. So this was reported to prison authorities. An investigation was conducted. The jail warden admitted that he is the author of the pregnancy. His claim, it was out of affection. He did not make any immoral solicitation or advances. The woman prisoner was also questioned, and she confirmed. She in fact recalls that: “There were only 2 of them there. She was lonesome, where they love each other’s company. Nonetheless the jail warden was convicted, because the essence of the crime is one of taking advantage of official authority. The defense of the jail warden was that the provision of Art. 245 punishing the making of immoral or indecent advances or solicitation he never made it. It was purely companion and this was also confirmed by the woman prisoner.
SC: The best evidence of the solicitation is the pregnancy. Actions speak louder than voice. So he was convicted.
So it is not a matter of whether the solicitation of jail warden is punished. It is a matter of the prisoner is under his responsibility.
***IMPT: The crime is committed even though the immoral or indecent solicitation or advances was made not on the prisoner but on the sister, the daughter, or the wife of the prisoner. So even though the prisoner is a male, this crime can be committed, when the immoral or indecent solicitations had been made to the wife of the prisoner or to the daughter of the prisoner or to the sister of the prisoner or to any female relative of the prisoner within the same degree. **BUT noticeably, the mother of the prisoner is not included. So if the immoral or indecent solicitation of a sexual relation was made to the mother of the prisoner, this crime is not committed. Instead, the violation will be that of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act --- that of receiving or demanding or asking any gift or favor, on one who is transacting with the public office where the public officer is involved, but not the crime of abuse against of chastity.
So even if the woman prisoner fell in love with the custodian, that is no justification for the custodian to establish some sexual or intimate relationship with her. Even if the warden responsible would be courting the prisoner, that would be covered by the prohibition. He can courts after the prisoner is no longer under his custody or she is no longer a prisoner. A prisoner is an accountability of the government.
So in a case where a woman was convicted and eventually made to serve sentence. While serving sentence, she was being visited by religious sisters or nuns bringing her some religious articles. The nuns noticed as days and months passed by, the prisoner is becoming pregnant. So this was reported to prison authorities. An investigation was conducted. The jail warden admitted that he is the author of the pregnancy. His claim, it was out of affection. He did not make any immoral solicitation or advances. The woman prisoner was also questioned, and she confirmed. She in fact recalls that: “There were only 2 of them there. She was lonesome, where they love each other’s company. Nonetheless the jail warden was convicted, because the essence of the crime is one of taking advantage of official authority. The defense of the jail warden was that the provision of Art. 245 punishing the making of immoral or indecent advances or solicitation he never made it. It was purely companion and this was also confirmed by the woman prisoner.
SC: The best evidence of the solicitation is the pregnancy. Actions speak louder than voice. So he was convicted.
So it is not a matter of whether the solicitation of jail warden is punished. It is a matter of the prisoner is under his responsibility.
***IMPT: The crime is committed even though the immoral or indecent solicitation or advances was made not on the prisoner but on the sister, the daughter, or the wife of the prisoner. So even though the prisoner is a male, this crime can be committed, when the immoral or indecent solicitations had been made to the wife of the prisoner or to the daughter of the prisoner or to the sister of the prisoner or to any female relative of the prisoner within the same degree. **BUT noticeably, the mother of the prisoner is not included. So if the immoral or indecent solicitation of a sexual relation was made to the mother of the prisoner, this crime is not committed. Instead, the violation will be that of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act --- that of receiving or demanding or asking any gift or favor, on one who is transacting with the public office where the public officer is involved, but not the crime of abuse against of chastity.
No comments:
Post a Comment