G.R. L-No.

5110

August 19, 1909

US vs. LEGASPI and PULONGBARET

FACTS:

Sotero Cruz, complaining witness, and Fabiana Legaspi, accused, were

married.

On the evening of March 23, 1908, the complaining witness found the accused
to have left his house; he, then, followed her and found her in the house of her
aunt. Then, he crept up to the window and was able to observe what went on
inside the house. He, then, discovered Fabiana Legaspi and Paulino
Pulongbaret in flagrante delicto. Afterwards, he called upon the policeman to
arrest them. After obtaining a written order from the sergeant at the local police
station, the policeman joined the witness in creeping into the house and they
discovered them in bed together, and forthwith arrested them.

An adultery case was initiated against Fabiana Legaspi and Paulino

Pulongbaret.

The trial court convicted the two accused of the crime of adultery based on the
testimonies of the complaining witness and the policeman.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crime of adultery.

HELD:

Yes. The accused are guilty of the crime of adultery.

The Court ruled that the testimony of the husband is satisfactory corroborated
by the testimony of the policemen. The defendant, Fabiana Legaspi, did not
testify in her own behalf, but her codefendant, Paulino Pulongbaret, admitted
that at the time when the arrest was made he was lone in the room with his
codefendant; he also admitted that she was at that time in bed, but he denied
that he was in bed with her, or had had any criminal relations with her.

The admissions of the accused would in themselves appear to be sufficient to

established the commission of the crime; for the unexplained fact that a man is
found at a late hour of the night, alone in a room with another man's wife, she
being in bed, and absent from her husband's home without his consent, and as
far as she knew without his knowledge, would seem to be sufficient to sustain
a conviction of the crime of adultery.

Proof of the commission of the crime of adultery, like proof of the commission
of most other crimes, may safely be rested on circumstantial evidence when
that evidence is such that it leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the guilt of
the accused, and, indeed, contrary to the contention of counsel for appellants,
convictions for this crime have frequently been had without direct evidence as
to the specific acts constituting the offense, as will appear from the following
citations from decisions of the Tribunal Supremo de España:

The finding in the possession of a married woman of several love letters signed
by her paramour; their having been seen together in different places, and
finally, the fact that they were surprised in a well-known assignation house
which the accused woman admitted having visited six times in company with
the former, are data and indications sufficient to convict them both of the
crime of adultery; because, as the supreme court of Spain says, "it shows
without doubt not only thier illicit relations but also such acts as constitute
adultery and are the consequence of said relations." (Decision of the 23d of
June, 1874.)

Therefore, the accused, Fabiana Legaspi and Paulino Pulongbaret are guilty of
the crime of adultery.

G.R. No. L-12724

August 10, 1917

US vs. FELICIANO

FACTS:

Margarita Feliciano, accused, and Felix Atacador, complainant, were married.

Margarita left her husband on February 15, 1916. During the months of May,
June, and a part of July of the same year, she lived in a rented house in Manila
with Pedro Velasquez.

Consequently, Felix Atacador filed an adultery case against Margarita Feliciano

and Pedro Velasquez.

The trial court dismissed the case against Velasquez but convicted Margarita
Feliciano.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Margarita Feliciano is guilty of committing the crime of adultery

based on circumstantial evidence.

HELD:

Yes. Margarita Feliciano is guilty of committing the crime of adultery based on

circumstantial evidence.

The Court held that the nature of the crime of adultery is such that it will not
be often when it can be established by direct evidence. Nevertheless, strong
circumstantial and corroborative evidence such as will lead the guarded
discretion of a reasonable and just man to the conclusion that the alleged act
has been committed is sufficient to sustain a conviction for adultery. (5
Groizard, Codigo Penal, pp. 24 et seq.; decision of the supreme court of Spain
of June 23, 1874; 1. R. C. L., par. 28.)

In the present case, Margarita Feliciano may be convicted based on

circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The first evidence was
the testimony of a witness who said to have seen the accused and Velasquez in
scant apparel and sleeping together. The second evidence was a photograph
which shows their intimate relations. And lastly, the owner, who lived in the
upper part of the same house, considered them to be man and wife. From these
pieces of evidence, it can be inferred that the woman, Margarita Feliciano, and
her paramour, Pedro Velasquez, had the opportunity to satisfy their adulterous
inclination.

Therefore, Margarita Feliciano is found guilty of committing the crime of

adultery based on circumstantial evidence.
G.R. No. 1181

April 27, 1905

US vs.VILLAFUERTE and RABANO

FACTS:

Felix Villa and Eugenia Rabano lived as husband and wife in their own house
when Engracio Villafuerte came to interfere with the marital relations. Thus, an
adultery case was filed against Rabano and Villafuerte

The prosecution presented three witnesses and stated that Villafuerte

frequented the hose of the complainant, Villa, usually at a time when the latter
was absent from this house. Villafuerte left his mother's house and went to live
at the house of the offended party. Also, at a late hour in the evening, the two
defendants were surprised and seen at a time when they were lying together in
the complainant's own house. Thereafter, the husband and the witness Basilio
Navela, a member of the police force, and one other, saw the two defendants
one night in Villafuerte's house and from the outside they saw that the
defendants were lying together in the interior of the room, inside of a
storehouse. On the following morning, Rabano was arrested by them and taken
to the police station. Another witness named, Maria Origenes, a child 10 years
old, who lived in the house of the complainant, states that on a certain
occasion, while the complainant was absent from the house, she saw both
defendants, who she called "sweethearts," in the act of carnal intercourse.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crime of adultery.

HELD:

Yes. The accused are guilty of the crime of adultery.

The Court ruled that the above-stated facts, fully proven in this case, are
clothed with all the characteristics of the crime of adultery provided for and
punished in article 433 of the Penal Code.

These acts executed by them constitute the crime of adultery, and therefore,
being criminally liable for this crime, they have incurred the penalty provided
for in the Penal Code.
G.R. No. L-11371

August 1, 1916

US vs.MEMORACION and URI

FACTS:

The accused, Cecilia Memoracion and complainant, Eustaquio Abrigo, were

married.

An adultery case was filed against Cecilia Memoracion and Dalamacio Uri.

The lower court convicted the defendants of the crime of adultery.

On appeal, the accused Uri interposed a defense that at the time of the alleged
illicit relations, he did not know that Memoracion was a married woman.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defense of Uri is tenable.

HELD:

No. The defense or Uri is untenable.

The Court ruled that the proof shows beyond a reasonable doubt, by eye-
witnesses, that they had had the illicit relations charged in the complaint. The
husband of Cecilia declared that they had lived together as husband and wife
in the community where the crime was alleged to have been committed for a
number of years; that the fact that they were husband and wife was well
known in that community. It is also shown that the defendant Dalmacio Uri
has visited the house of Cecilia and her husband a great number of times; that
he had seen them together in the same house, and that he knew that they were
living there together. The defendant Uri had been in the community where the
crime was committed for a number of months. It can scarcely be believed, in
view of the fact that he had visited the house of Eustaquio and Cecilia twenty
or more times before the commission of the crime, that he did not at least know
that they were married and were husband and wife. In view of the fact that he
had frequently visited the house where Eustaquio and Cecilia were living and
saw their relations, one toward the other, we are convinced, in the absence of
positive proof to the contrary, that he must have known that they were at least
living together as husband and wife.
Therefore, the accused are found guilty of the crime of adultery.