|
|
|
|
|
THE UNITED STATES,
G.
R.
No. 11371
August
1, 1916
-versus-
CECILIA MEMORACION AND DALMACIO URI, Defendants-Appellants. JOHNSON,
J.:
These defendants were charged
with the crime of adultery. On the 7th of June 1915, a Complaint was
presented
against them in the court of the Justice of the Peace of the
Municipality
of Albay. A preliminary examination was held at the close of which, the
Justice of the Peace found that there was probable cause for believing
that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged in the Complaint,
and held them for trial in the Court of First Instance.
On the 26th of June 1915, the offended party presented a Complaint against the said defendants. Later, on the 23d of August 1915, the said offended party presented an Amended Complaint which alleged:
Upon said Complaint, the
defendants were duly arraigned and each pleaded not guilty of the crime
charged in the Complaint. The cause was brought on for trial and after
hearing the evidence, the Honorable J. C. Jenkins, Judge, in a
carefully
prepared opinion, found that the defendants were guilty of the crime
charged
in the Complaint and sentenced each of them to be imprisoned for a
period
of four years, nine months and eleven days of prision correccional with
the accessory penalties of Article 61 of the Penal Code and each to pay
one-half the costs. From that sentence each of the defendants appealed
to this court. In this court the appellants make the following
assignments
of error:
'Mr. SIERRA. Objected to as not best proof. 'The COURT. I will allow the evidence. 'A. She is my wife.' "(2) In admitting as evidence the alleged marriage certificate issued by the parish priest of Daraga; and, therefore, issued by the parish priest of Daraga; and, therefore, in overruling the objection filed by the attorney for the defense against the introduction of Exhibit G, as evidence for the prosecution. "(3) In the court himself personally addressing the following questions to the witness Nicolas Briola:
'Q. Were you at the wedding? — A. I was there.' "And in refusing to strike out of the record the testimony of the witness Nicolas Briola, overruling the motion so to do, made by the defense. "(4) In holding in the judgment that the alleged marriage of the complainant Eustaquio Abrigo with the co-accused Cecilia Memoracion is a proven fact. "(5) In holding that there is legal presumption of the existence of the marriage between the complainant Abrigo and the coaccused Memoracion. "(6) In holding as a proven fact that the accused Dalmacio Uri knew, on the night of June 6, 1915, that Cecilia Memoracion and Eustaquio Abrigo were husband and wife. "(7) In holding that the accused are guilty of the crime of adultery, and in sentencing them to the penalty of four years nine months and eleven days of prision correccional with the accessory penalties and costs." With reference to said
assignments of error, the first, third and fourth may be discussed
together
for the reason that they present but one question. The question
presented
by the said assignments of error is whether or not oral testimony is
competent
proof of a marriage in the case of the crime of adultery. The first
assignment
of error is based upon the fact that the husband was asked the question
whether or not he and the defendant Cecilia Memoracion were married and
whether or not they were husband and wife. The appellants contend that
his declaration was not competent evidence upon that fact. If a man and
a woman are married, the declaration of either of them is competent
evidence
to show the fact. No witness is more competent than they are. Whether
the
declaration of a husband alone is sufficient to prove that fact must
depend
upon each particular case. There might, perchance, be a case where the
judge would not believe the declaration of the husband or wife upon the
question of the marriage. In such a case corroborative proof might
become
necessary. Corroboration of the fact is not absolutely necessary if the
declaration to either the husband or wife is sufficient to satisfy the
conscience of the court. Certainly there are no witnesses more
competent
than the husband and wife to testify as to whether they were married or
not. Under the third assignment or error, the same question is
presented
with reference to the oral declaration of Nicolas Briola. The appellant
contends that his oral declaration should not have been accepted upon
the
question whether the marriage existed or not. He testified that Cecilia
Memoracion and Eustaquio Abrigo had been married and that he was
present
at the wedding. A witness who is present at the time a marriage takes
place
is certainly a competent witness to testify as to whether a marriage
took
place or not. Whether or not his declaration is admissible for the
purpose
of showing that fact is another matter.
In reaching the foregoing conclusion, We have not overlooked the Decision of this Court in the case of U.S. vs. Nebrida and Saorda [32 Phil. Rep., 160]. In that case, the Court simply said that the substantially uncorroborated testimony of the complaining witness in a case of adultery as to the fact of the marriage is not sufficient to establish the fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a criminal action. In the present case, the declaration of the husband as to the marriage was corroborated by proof that he and his alleged wife had been living together for a period of twenty years. That fact alone gave rise to the presumption that they were husband and wife. And not only that, but the declaration of the husband was supported by the testimony of another witness who was present at the time the marriage took place. We are fully convinced that Eustaquio Abrigo and Cecilia Memoracion were legally married and that they were husband and wife. With reference to the second assignment of error, the appellant claims that the lower court committed an error in admitting as proof exhibit G. Exhibit G purports to be a marriage certificate issued by the parish priest, and purports to certify that Eustaquio Abrigo and Cecilia Memoracion were married. While it is true that the lower court admitted Exhibit G over the objection of the defendant, if will be noted, upon an examination of the decision of the lower court, that it was rejected and was not considered as proof. The lower court said in the course of his decision:
In view of that fact, therefore,
We find no reason for sustaining the contention of the appellant.
Exhibit
G was not considered as proof for the purpose of determining the
existence
of the marriage in question.
With reference to the fifth assignment of error, the lower court in the course of his opinion said:
Subparagraph 28 of Section
334 of Act No. 190 which relates to disputable presumptions provides:
In discussing that provision
of said Act No. 190, this Court said in the case of United States vs.
Villafuerte
(4 Phil. Rep., 559):
In
view of the above quoted
provision of Act No. 190 and the Decision of this Court upon the same,
it remains to be seen whether or not the alleged spouses had "deported
themselves as husband and wife." The record shows that they had been
living
in the same house, under the same roof, and had been cohabiting
together
for a long period of time. That fact is not denied, nor even questioned
by anything found in the record.
With reference to the sixth assignment of error, the appellants contend that the defendant Dalmacio Uri, at the time the alleged illicit relations took place, did not know that Cecilia Memoracion was a married woman. That the said Uri and Memoracion had illicit relations at the time and place described in the Complaint is not denied. The proof shows beyond a reasonable doubt by eye-witnesses, that they 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 had 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 or 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 position proof to the contrary, that he must have known that they were at least living together as husband and wife. With reference to the seventh assignment of error, it may be said, after a careful examination of the evidence, that We are convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged and that the sentence of the lower court is in accordance with the facts and the law. Therefore, the sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered. Torres, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|