Simple seduction, A338 Revised Penal Code


Note: The following are annotations or notes on legal provisions. They are intended to be as a helping guide to better understanding the law. They are, however, not sources of law nor authorities. (Please refer to our full Disclaimer.)

Simple seduction – refers to the offense of deceitful convincing 16- or 17-year-old minors to have sex.

1. Concept

Simple seduction – refers to the offense of deceitful convincing 16- or 17-year-old minors to have sex.

a. Legal basis

Article 338. Simple seduction. – The seduction of a minor, sixteen and over but under eighteen years of age, committed by means of deceit, shall be punished by prision correccional. (As amended by R.A. 11648)

(NB: If the article has been amended by legislation or has been the subject of a Supreme Court decision which may have impacted how it is interpreted, do let us know so we can consider for the next update of this article. You may send it via: Feedback.)

2. Modes of commission

The following are the modes of committing the offense:

1) Sexual intercourse with a 16- or 17-year-old by means of deceit

a. Mode 1: Sex with a 16- or 17-year-old

Elements of the offense:

1) That the accused has carnal knowledge of a minor who is 16- or 17-year old;

2) Carnal knowledge is accomplished by means of deceit. (REVISED PENAL CODE, as amended by R.A. 11468, Article 338; See Agcaoili v. People, G.R. No. 194657, September 10, 2014, Per Reyes, Jr., J.)

1) Element 1: Sex with 16- or 17-year-old

The offended party should be a 16- or 17-year-old minor.

In the old law, or prior to the amended by R.A. 11468, the offended party was limited to a woman who was above 12 years old but less than 18 years old. In the current formulation, the offended party may be of either sex, i.e., a male or a female. Moreover, the offended party has to be either a 16- or 17-year-old minor.

2) Element 2: Deceit

Employing deceit to have sex with a 16- or 17-year-old minor is the gravamen of the offense. The fraudulent machinations or representations to get the offended party to have sex with the offender is what is being punished by this provision.

a) Promise of marriage

The usual form of deceit is an unfulfilled promise of marriage. (Agcaoili v. People, supra.)

Agcaoili v. People, G.R. No. 194657, September 10, 2014, Per Reyes, Jr., J.:

• [I]t was clear and undisputed that the victim was then only 1 7 years, five months and three days in age at the time of the sexual intercourse committed by the petitioner on January 27, 1999, she being born on August 24, 1981; and that she yielded to having the sexual intercourse with him because of his promise to marry, not for the satisfaction of her carnal desires. With these facts and circumstances having been proved, it becomes clear that he deliberately violated the letter and the spirit of the law on simple seduction. As such, his guilt for simple seduction was established beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Things to note

The following are some additional things to note about this offense.

a. Common provisions

This offense shares common provisions with other offenses under Title XI of the Revised Penal Code – Crimes Against Chastity. See: Crimes Against Chastity

b. Consented to sex

For the offense of simple seduction, it should be noted that, the offended party did, in fact, consented to having sex only that such assent was obtained by means of deceit.

Otherwise, if the offended party did not consent or was unconscious, the offense would have been more serious, which in this case, is rape.

c. May be against children

Articles 337 (Qualified Seduction), 339 (Acts of Lasciviousness with the Consent of the Offended Party), 340 (Corruption of Minor) and 341 (White Slave Trade) of the RPC, as well as Article 336 (Acts of Lasciviousness) of the RPC, fall under Title Eleven of the RPC on Crimes against Chastity. All these crimes can be committed against children. (People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019)

3. Distinguish from other offenses

This offense is distinguished from other offenses or crimes below.

a. Simple seduction vs Qualified seduction

FactorsSimple seductionQualified seduction
Offended Party13- to 17-year-old16- or 17-year-old
OffenderAny personSpecific individuals: (1) Any person in public authority; (2) Priest; (3) Home-servant; (4) Domestic guardian; (5) Teacher; or (6) Any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted with the education or custody of the minor seduced
Overt ActsOffender has sexual intercourse with offended party who is 13- to 17-year-old and who consented, by means of deceitOffender has sexual intercourse with offended party who is a 16- or 17-year-old and who consented, via abuse of confidence

In both qualified seduction and simple seduction, there is sexual intercourse. However, for simple seduction, the means used to have sex was through deceit. On the other hand, in qualified seduction, the means used to have sex was due to abuse of confidence over a 16- or 17-year-old minor.

b. Simple seduction vs Rape

FactorsSimple SeductionRape
Offended Party13- to 17-year-oldAny person
OffenderAny personAny person
Overt ActsOffender has sexual intercourse with offended party who is 13- to 17-year-old and who consented, by means of deceitOffender has sexual intercourse with the offended party or commits acts of penetration in relation to sexual intercourse, without the latter’s consent

While both qualified seduction and rape involves sexual intercourse, the main difference between the two is that in seduction there was consensual sex albeit obtained via deceit and in rape there was no consent to the sex.

People v. Pascua, G.R. Nos. 128159-62 July 14, 2003, Per Corona, J.:

• Equally untenable is the argument of the appellant that, if he is at all liable for anything, it should only be for simple seduction. Under Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code, to constitute seduction, there must in all cases be some deceitful promise or inducement. The woman should have yielded because of this promise or inducement. In this case, the appellant claims that the acts of sexual intercourse with the private complainants were in exchange for money. He declared that, prior to every sexual intercourse with Liza and Anna, he would promise them P20. However, aside from his bare testimony, the appellant presented no proof that private complainants’ consent was secured by means of such promise. As aptly opined by the trial court, the money given by the appellant to private complainants was not intended to lure them to have sex with him. Rather, it was for the purpose of buying their silence to ensure that nobody discovered his dastardly acts. The evidence for the prosecution was more than enough to show that the element of voluntariness on the part of private complainants was totally absent. Liza and Anna’s respective testimonies established that the appellant had sexual intercourse with them without their consent and against their will. Considering that the victims’ accounts of what the appellant did to them were absolutely credible and believable, the trial court correctly convicted the appellant of several crimes of rape against the 12-year-old twins, [L.] and [A.] Paragas.


Title XI – Crimes Against Chastity, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code

/Updated: May 20, 2023

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Top Read

Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001

“Covered Institution” refers to: 1) Banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

lex prospicit, non respicit

• “the law looks forward not backward” (Co v. CA, En Banc, G.R. No. 100776, October 28, 1993, citing Development Bank of the Philippines v.

index animi sermo

Latin maxim. • “speech is the index of intention” (Bolos v. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010)

Suggested Answers to Bar Exam Questions

Read more


You cannot copy content of this page