
    People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Millán, Defendant and Appellant.
    Appeal from the District Court of San -Juan in a Prosecution for Seduction.
    No. 1419.
    Decided November 13, 1919.
    . Seduction — Evidence—Virginity op Victim. — Por the commission of the crime of seduction defined in section' 261 of the Penal Oode the woman need not have been a virgin when the crime was committed, for it is sufficient that she was of previous chaste character, and therefore it is unnecessary to produce evidence that she lost her virginity with the defendant or expert evidence of the defloration.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. G. Garcia de la Noceda for the appellant.
    
      Mr. José E. Figueras, Fiscal, for the appellee.
   Me. Justice Aldeey

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question raised by the appellant in this case is that the jury should not have convicted him of the crime of seduction because it was not proved by a medical expert that Juana Bosario, whom he was charged with having seduced, was deflowered- by him, this being the only means, in his opinion, of corroborating the testimony of the woman as to the sexual intercourse.

For the commission of the crime of seduction defined by section 261 of the Penal Code the woman need not have been a virgin when the crime was committed, for it is sufficient that she was of previous chaste character, therefore it is obvious that it is unnecessary to prove that she lost her virginity with the defendant or that a physician should testify to the defloration; and as there was other evidence tending to' corroborate the testimony of the victim that the carnal act was committed under promise of marriage, the judgment must be

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Hernández and Justice del Toro concurred.

Justices Wolf and Hutchison took no part in the decision of this case.  