ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)

Chan Robles Virtual Law Library




February-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10173 February 1, 1916 - MARIANO VELASCO & Co. v. GOCHUICO CO.

    033 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 10935 February 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO E. VELASQUEZ

    033 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 9184 February 2, 1916 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

    033 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 10129 February 2, 1916 - CLARA TAMBUNTING v. EDILBERTO SANTOS

    033 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 10744 February 2, 1916 - ANTONIO RAYMUNDO v. AMBROSIO CARPIO

    033 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 10841 February 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LOS SANTOS

    033 Phil 397


    033 Phil 406


    033 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 10121 February 3, 1916 - MAURICIA SOTO v. DOMINGA ONG

    033 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 10107 February 4, 1916 - CLARA CEREZO v. ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC COMPANY

    033 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 8769 February 5, 1916 - SMITH, BELL & CO. v. MARIANO MARONILLA

    041 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 9802 February 5, 1916 - TEC BI & CO. v. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    041 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 10345 February 5, 1916 - KUENZLE & STREIFF (LTD.) v. JUAN VILLANUEVA

    041 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 10078 February 5, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELINO DACAIMAT

    033 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 9038 February 7, 1916 - PEDRO MAGAYANO v. TOMAS GAPUZAN

    033 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 10280 February 7, 1916 - ENGRACIO CORONEL v. CENON ONA

    033 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 8166 February 8, 1916 - JORGE DOMALAGAN v. CARLOS BOLIFER

    033 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 10548 February 9, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNO DE IRO

    033 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10104 February 10, 1916 - ROMANA CORTES v. FLORENCIO G. OLIVA

    033 Phil 480


    033 Phil 485


    033 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9596 February 11, 1916 - MARCOS MENDOZA v. FRANCISCO DE LEON

    033 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 11048 February 11, 1916 - LIM PUE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 11081 February 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MOHAMAD

    033 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 9977 February 12, 1916 - DOROTEO KARAGDAG v. FILOMENA BARADO

    033 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 11065 February 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LOPE K. SANTOS

    033 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 9966 February 14, 1916 - TRINIDAD DE AYALA v. ANTONIO M. BARRETTO

    033 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 10427 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SOY CHUY

    033 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 10666 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. QUE SIANG

    033 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 10951 February 14, 1916 - K.S. YOUNG v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    033 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 8914 February 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. RAYMUNDO ZAPANTA

    033 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 9277 February 15, 1916 - ANDRES CALON y MARTIN v. BALBINO ENRIQUEZ

    033 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 9822 February 15, 1916 - BENIGNO SOLIS v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    033 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 10722 February 18, 1916 - DOLORES A IGNACIO v. FELISA MARTINEZ

    033 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 10516 February 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO SOLAÑA

    033 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 10323 February 21, 1916 - PETRA DE CASTRO v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF BOCAUE

    033 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 9204 February 24, 1916 - LAZARO PASCUAL v. FELIPE PASCUAL

    033 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 10531 February 25, 1916 - JULIANA MELIZA v. PABLO ARANETA

    033 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 10672 October 26, 1915


    033 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 8271 February 26, 1916 - PETRONILA MARQUEZ v. FLORENTINA SACAY

    034 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10934 February 26, 1916 - PP. AGUSTINOS RECOLETOS v. GALO LICHAUCO ET AL.

    034 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 10675 February 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YAP TIAN JONG

    034 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9665 February 29, 1916 - IN RE: AMBROSIO RABALO v. GABINA RABALO

    034 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 10244 February 29, 1916 - SANTIAGO CRUZADO v. ESTEFANIA BUSTOS

    034 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. 11006 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO BALBIN

    034 Phil 38

  • G.R. Nos. 11055 & 11056 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ANG

    034 Phil 44



    G.R. No. 10672   October 26, 1915<br /><br />UNITED STATES v. CARMEN IBAÑEZ<br /><br />033 Phil 611



    [G.R. No. 10672. October 26, 1915. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARMEN IBAÑEZ and PACIFICO MANALILI, Defendants-Appellants.

    Lacson & Lacson and Juan L. Orbeta for Appellants.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.


    1. ADULTERY; DWELLING OF OFFENDED PARTY. — The fact that the crime of adultery was committed in the dwelling of the offended person should be deemed an aggravating circumstance, notwithstanding that the conjugal home is the common domicile of the husband and the adulterous wife; because, besides the latter’s breach of the fidelity she owes her husband, she and her accomplice violate the respect due to the conjugal home and they both thereby injure and commit a very grave offense against the head of the house.

    D E C I S I O N

    ARAULLO, J. :

    Carmen Ibañez and Pacifico Manalili were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Cebu for the crime of adultery, on a complaint filed on May 21, 1914, by Felix Alviola, the husband of the first-named. The accused pleaded not guilty and were tried separately. On February 25 of the present year, 1915, the said Court of First Instance rendered judgment in both cases, finding the defendants guilty of the said crime and sentencing them to the penalty of three years six months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, each to pay one-half of the costs. The defendants appealed and their counsel assign several errors to the findings of the trial judge on the evidence presented in each of the two cases.

    After a minute examination and a very careful review of the evidence we have found nothing to justify us in making and alteration or change in the said findings on which the trial judge based his judgment.

    It was satisfactorily proven that the defendant Carmen Ibañez was the lawful wife of the complaining witness Felix Alviola; that their marriage had not been dissolved on any of the dates mentioned in the complaint when, according to the evidence, the acts constituting the crime in question were performed; and that the defendant Pacifico Manalili knew of the said dates that Carmen Ibañez, his codefendant, was the wife of the said Alviola. It was likewise proven beyond all doubt that, prior to the filing of the complaint, intimate relations of a very suspicious character existed between Carmen Ibañez and Pacifico Manalili; that on one occasion they were together, alone, seated on a dry river-bed in the shade of the bamboo trees; that the defendant Pacifico Manalili was accustomed to frequent the home of the spouses Carmen Ibañez and Felix Alviola at times when the latter was absent; that during such visits the doors and windows of the house were habitually closed; that Carmen Ibañez often absented herself from her home; that on one of these occasions her husband, watching and following her, saw her in company with Manalili; that the defendants separated on perceiving Alviola’s presence, each of them going in a different direction; that on meeting his wife Alviola asked her where she had been; that she replied she had been to the dressmaker’s; that on another occasion Alviola surprised the defendant Manalili going down the stairs of the conjugal home, and that immediately Manalili hurriedly mounted his bicycle and rode away.

    And finally it was proven that twice when Felix Alviola was away from home the defendant Pacifico Manalili and his codefendant Carmen Ibañez, Alviola’s wife, had sexual intercourse in the said house — once on May 16, 1914, and again a few days afterwards on the morning of the 21st; that on this last occasion, Alviola, having been notified previously, went to his house accompanied by a policeman and surprised Manalili hiding behind the kitchen door; that his coaccused Carmen Ibañez was alone in the said house at the time and when her husband asked her whose bicycle it was that was standing at the door and who was inside the house, the said Carmen concealed and denied the presence therein of the said Manalili, and that the bicycle turned out to belong to the latter.

    The defendants are therefore guilty as principals by direct participation of the crime of adultery provided for and punished by article 433 of the Penal Code, and the trial judge correctly so held in view of the evidence submitted in each of the aforesaid cases. But account should be taken of the aggravating circumstance of the crime having been committed in the house of the aggrieved person in spite of the fact that the conjugal home was the common domicile of Felix Alviola and his wife, Carmen Ibañez; the latter, false to the duty she owed her husband of being faithful to him, failed, as did the other defendant, to respect the sacredness of this home, and both the defendants injured and committed a grave offense against the said Felix Alviola, the master of that home. In a similar case the supreme court of Spain laid down the same rule in its decision of July 6, 1885,

    "As the person offended by the crime of adultery is the husband, the aggravating circumstance of committing it in his dwelling cannot be excused by the fact that the dwelling was also the home of the adulteress; because, aside from the consideration that the stranger to the marriage who violated the law in that domicile is not a member of the community residing there, the adulates’ liability is morally and legally accentuated by her lack of respect for the domicile of the offended party, as is implied by her brazen and outrageous consummation of the crime therein."cralaw virtua1aw library

    There being no extenuating circumstance to offset the said aggravating one, the corresponding penalty in its maximum degree should be imposed upon the defendants, in addition to which the defendant Pacifico Manalili should also be sentenced to the accessory penalties of article 61 of the Penal Code.

    Therefore, with the understanding that the penalty of prision correccional imposed upon each of the defendants shall be one of imprisonment for four years nine months and eleven days and that the defendant Pacifico Manalili in addition thereto shall be sentenced to the accessory penalties of suspension from all office and from the right of suffrage during the term of his sentence, we affirm the respective judgments appealed from, with costs of both instances against the appellants. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 10672   October 26, 1915<br /><br />UNITED STATES v. CARMEN IBAÑEZ<br /><br />033 Phil 611

    Back to Home | Back to Main






      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™