Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > November 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 11043 November 26, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. DORICA MANZANO, ET AL.

032 Phil 338:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 11043. November 26, 1915. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DORICA MANZANO and VENANCIO CAPISTRANO, Defendants-Appellants.

A. M. Jimenez for Appellants.

Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ADULTERY; PROSECUTION; CONDONATION OR PARDON. — Since the passage of Act No. 1773, the crime of adultery has been deemed a public crime, and, as provided in section 1 of said Act, is prosecuted in the same manner as are all other crimes defined by the Penal Code or by the Acts of the Philippine Commission. Section 2 thereof prescribes that condonation, pardon, or remission of penalty by the aggrieved person shall in no way extinguish the liability of the guilty person or persons to criminal prosecution and punishment, nor shall such condonation, pardon, or remission operate to dismiss or suspend any prosecution, once commenced, in accordance with the provisions of the preceding section, except, however, that in cases of estupro, rapto or violacion, the marriage of the accused or convicted person to the aggrieved person shall extinguish such criminal liability.


D E C I S I O N


ARAULLO, J. :


The present proceedings were brought against these defendants, in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, for the crime of adultery. On arraignment, they pleaded guilty and on July 15, 1915, said court rendered judgment in which, considering defendants’ plea of guilty and their lack of education as a circumstance mitigating their liability, he sentenced each of them, as guilty of said crime, to 2 years 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional and to pay one-half of the costs.

On the same date Francisco Ramos, the complainant and husband of the defendant Dorica Manzano, presented a petition wherein he stated that, out of consideration and compassion for his three minor children begotten by the defendant, his wife, he willingly pardoned her and he prayed the court to remit the penalty imposed upon her in the judgment aforementioned. This petition was denied by an order of the same date.

On July 8, defendants’ counsel also petitioned the court to issue an order remitting said penalty, on the grounds that the aggrieved husband was willing that the penalty imposed in the judgment be set aside or remitted, and that the information filed in the cause was not subscribed or signed by said complainant. This petition was likewise denied by an order of the 12th of the same month of July, to which defendants excepted and at the same time appealed from the judgment. Their counsel has alleged in this instance that the trial court erred: (first) in not dismissing the complaint in this cause, filed and signed by the prosecuting attorney; and (second) in not remitting or setting aside the penalty imposed upon defendants.

The first assignment of error is based on the fact that the complaint herein was not filed or signed by the aggrieved husband, Francisco Ramos, but by the prosecuting attorney, in violation of the provision of section 1 of Act No. 1773 of the Philippine Commission, pursuant to which no prosecution for the crime of adultery committed against any person other than a public official or employee, shall be instituted except upon the complaint of the aggrieved person or of the parents, grandparents, or guardian of such person.

But as may be seen, this section prescribes that, for the institution of proceedings for the crime of adultery committed against any person, other than a public official or employee, it is sufficient that the complaint be filed by the aggrieved person or by his parents, grandparents, or guardian.

In the case at bar the aggrieved husband, Francisco Ramos, on March 3, 1915, filed a complaint, subscribed and worn to by him in the justice of the peace court of Candon, in which he accused his wife Dorica Manzano and the other defendant, Venancio Capistrano, of committing adultery, to which they both pleaded guilty in the same justice of the peace court. The record of the preliminary proceedings therein was therefore forwarded to the Court of First Instance and the accused were consequently placed under its jurisdiction. In the Court of First Instance the proper complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal, whereby the present proceedings were instituted. So that it cannot be said that the prosecution for adultery was not instituted by the person aggrieved by said crime. The complaint filed by the latter in the justice of the peace court is that which gave rise to the criminal action prosecuted in this cause, and which conferred upon the Court of First Instance jurisdiction over the persons of the accused and the subject matter of the action. It is unquestionable that this cause was prosecuted and decided by virtue of said complaint and that said complaint gave rise to the filing of the proper complaint by the fiscal. The first error assigned by the defense is, therefore, without merit and cannot be sustained.

Since October 11, 1907, when said Act No. 1773 was passed, the crime of adultery has been deemed a public offense and, as stated in section 1 of the Act, is prosecuted in the same manner as are all other crimes defined by the Penal Code or by the Acts of the Philippine Commission. Section 2 of this Act prescribes that condonation, pardon, or remission of penalty by the aggrieved person shall in no way extinguish the liability of the guilty persons to criminal prosecution and punishment, nor shall such condonation, pardon, or remission operate to dismiss or suspend any prosecution, once commenced, in accordance with the provisions of the preceding section, except that in cases of estupro, rapto or violacion, the legal marriage of the accused or convicted person to the offended person shall extinguish such criminal liability.

In view of these categorical provisions, it is also unquestionable that the lower court did not err in refusing to remit or condone the penalty imposed upon the defendants in this cause, as he was requested to do by them and by the complaining witness and aggrieved husband.

As defendants pleaded guilty to the crime of adultery, provided for and punished by article 433 of the Penal Code, and as no circumstance modifying their criminal liability was found to have attended the commission of the crime, for their plea of guilty cannot be taken into account as an extenuation, nor, since it is a crime of adultery, can their lack of education, as it was erroneously held by the trial court, the corresponding penalty in the medium degree must be imposed upon them, though they should be granted the privilege prescribed in rule 93 of the provisional law for the application of the provisions of the Penal Code, as they are suffering temporary imprisonment, and it has not been shown that they fall within any of the exceptions of said rule.

Therefore, with the understanding that the penalty of prision correccional imposed upon each of the defendants shall be 3 years 6 months and 21 days and that the defendant Venancio Capistrano shall be sentenced in addition to the accessory penalties of suspension from all public office and from the right of suffrage during the period of his sentence, we affirm the judgment appealed from, with the costs of this instance against appellants in equal parts. In serving their respective sentences, defendants shall be allowed credit for one-half of the time they have been imprisoned while awaiting the final disposition of their appeal, any fraction of a day resulting from such rebate to be counted in their favor. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1915 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9930 November 2, 1915 - FELIPE YANGO v. BARTOLOME ROMERO

    032 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 10119 November 4, 1915 - MARIANO SEVERO P. TUASON v. MUNICIPALITY OF MARIQUINA

    032 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 10157 November 4, 1915 - E. C. MCCULLOUGH & GO. v. LUCENA ELECTRIC LIGHT

    032 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 10214 November 4, 1915 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 10670 November 4, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LI SUI WUN

    032 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 10935 November 4, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO E. VELAZQUEZ

    032 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 9963 November 5, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIA NEBRIDA,, ET AL.

    032 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 10174 November 5, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO PEREZ, ET AL.

    032 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 10012 November 9, 1915 - WALTER EASTON v. E. DIAZ & COMPANY, ET AL.

    032 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 10419 November 10, 1915 - FELIX LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO, ET AL.

    032 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 10533 November 11, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. DIONISIO ENRIQUEZ

    032 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 10659 November 11, 1915 - MACARIO LAVITORIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL.

    032 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 9749 November 13, 1915 - MERCEDES CHINCHILLA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    032 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10027 November 13, 1915 - ROSENDO E. HERNAEZ v. MATEO E. HERNAEZ

    032 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. 10615 November 16, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO ZAMORA

    032 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. 9235 November 17, 1915 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, . v. STEAMSHIP "RUBI

    032 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. 8788 November 19, 1915 - ESTEBAN GASATAYA v. CHARLES J. FALLON

    032 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 10240 November 20, 1915 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 10476 November 20, 1915 - OSADA CARR v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    032 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9105 November 22, 1915 - IN RE: APOLONIA REMIGIO v. SANTIAGO ORTIGA

    033 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 9976 November 22, 1915 - OQUIÑENA & COMPANY v. JOSE MUERTEGUI, ET AL.

    032 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 10113 November 22, 1915 - ROMULO MERCADO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    032 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 10106 November 23, 1915 - ANTONIO DE LA RIVA v. RAFAEL MOLINA SALVADOR

    032 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 10278 November 23, 1915 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ROMANA VELASQUEZ, ET AL.

    032 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 10093 November 24, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LAZARO EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

    032 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 10185 November 24, 1915 - ANGEL GONZALEZ v. JEREMIAS J. HARTY, ET AL.

    032 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 11043 November 26, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. DORICA MANZANO, ET AL.

    032 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 8873 November 29, 1915 - FLORA INSON v. AGUSTIN BELZUNCE

    032 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 10362 November 29, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LEON DIANA

    032 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 8242 November 30, 1915 - GREGORIO P. ACANTILADO v. MARCELINO DE SANTOS

    032 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 10402 November 30, 1915 - A. BUCHANAN v. PILAR A., VIUDA DE ESTEBAN

    032 Phil 363