Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > April 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1181 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENGRACIO VILLAFUERTE

004 Phil 476:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1181. April 27, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. ENGRACIO VILLAFUERTE and EUGENIA RABANO, Defendants-Appellants.

W . A. Kincaid and Modesto Reyes, for Appellants.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ADULTERY; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES. — The legitimacy of the marriage relation between the offended party and the defendant is one of the circumstances which must necessarily attend the crime of adultery.

2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS. — Although no certificate of marriage has been introduced in evidence to establish the marital relations between the offended party and the defendant, yet, if both parties have been living together and have been known as husband and wife, the presumption, no proof to the contrary having been adduced, is that they were legally united by the bonds of marriage.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


By virtue of a complaint filed by Felix Villa, on April 26, 1902, charging his wife, Eugenia Rabano, and Engracio Villafuerte with the crime of adultery, this case was brought against the defendants as principals in said crime.

From the record it appears fully proven by the testimony of three witnesses that Engracio Villafuerte frequented the house of the complainant, Felix Villa, usually at a time when the latter was absent from his house. That Villafuerte left his mother’s house and went to live at the house of the offended party three weeks before April 20 of last year. That on the latter day and 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, and then the husband and the witness who accompanied him, having learned what was happening in the interior of the house of the former, went and whipped his wife. That because of information one night, the husband and the witness Basilio Navela, a member of the police force in the town of Lucena, 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, and on the following morning when Eugenia Rabano came out she was arrested by them and taken to the police station.

The witness 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, whom she called "sweethearts," in the act of carnal intercourse.

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, with the penalty of prision correccional in its medium to its maximum degree. The guilt of the two defendants appears sufficiently established in this case as principals in the commission of said crime. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendants pleaded not guilty of the crime charged against them and that no certificate appears in the record of the case to establish the fact of the marriage of the complainant to the defendant Eugenia Rabano, still the case offers sufficient and complete proof that Eugenia Rabano was married to the complainant and that, notwithstanding her condition of being a married woman, she carried on illicit intercourse and relations with Engracio Villafuerte, who is not her husband. 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 above-mentioned article of the Penal Code.

Villa and Rabano lived as husband and wife in their own house when Villafuerte came to interfere with the marital relations and disturb their peace, and for the reason that the fact of Villa and Rabano were united by matrimony was not questioned, the presumption of their being married must be admitted as a legal fact, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, since even the statements of the witnesses for the defense affirm this presumption. And yet, even paying less attention to this presumption than to the presumption of innocence of the defendant, it is true that in the complaint it is affirmed by the complainant that Eugenia Rabano is his legitimate wife, and in addition it appears proven on the trial that they were united by the bonds of matrimony, which is affirmed not only by the witnesses for the prosecution but also by those of the defense, which produces on the mind a clear conviction of the guilt of the two defendants. If Eugenia Rabano were not united with Felix Villa by the bonds of matrimony and lived with him only in a state of concubinage, not only the woman but also Villafuerte would have so stated, and they would have denied and contradicted the complaint and would not have consented that in their presence the witnesses for the prosecution and their own witnesses should call Villa and Rabano husband and wife. The fact that they remained silent and did not dare to deny the truth of the marriage bonds which united them was, because they are convinced of their guilt and especially the woman, of her criminal and nefarious infidelity and so, with such proof of their guilt, the presumption of innocence can not be sustained.

In the commission of the crime there are no extenuating circumstances or aggravating circumstances to be considered, for which reason the penalty imposed in the medium degree is in accordance with the law.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed and the defendants sentenced to the penalty of three years six months and twenty-one days of prision correccional and to pay the costs, one-half each, it being understood that they are relieved from subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency for the payment of the costs. This case to be returned to the court below with a certified copy of this decision and of the judgment, which shall be rendered in accordance herewith. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa and Johnson, JJ., concur.

Carson, J., reserves his opinion.




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






April-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1375 April 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PACIFICO GONZAGA

    004 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 1703 April 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO CAPADUCIA

    004 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 1760 April 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IRINEO BIBAL

    004 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 1988 April 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO CAPARAS

    004 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 1530 April 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VENANCIO SANTOS

    004 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 1683 April 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO VIZQUERA

    004 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 1487 April 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ISMAEL TAN-SECO

    004 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 1504 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERT L. HIGHFILL

    004 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 1540 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR RAMOS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 1537 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GERONIMO MILLA

    004 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 1862 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN DAGALEA

    004 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 1647 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADAUSTO OCAMPO

    004 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 1897 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. POLICARPO AQUINO

    004 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 1953 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO FUENTES, ET AL.

    004 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 1588 April 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO SAN PEDRO

    004 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 1939 April 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO MACALINAO

    004 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 1714 April 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN LOGARIO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 1899 April 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO MAGSAMBOL

    004 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 2092 April 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ ET AL.

    004 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 2200 April 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PANTALEON CANTIL

    004 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 1557 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. AMADO SANTOS

    004 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 1943 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO SANTA ANA

    004 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 2134 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CAGAYAN ET AL.

    004 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 1486 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO RACINES, ET AL.

    004 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 1727 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 2170 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN CADAY

    004 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 2176 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO FULGUERAS

    004 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 1661 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO VILLAROSA

    004 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 1755 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 1773 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 2000 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE LIM TICO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 2198 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVERIO NUÑEZ

    004 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 1800 April 24, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FERMIN GREGORIO

    004 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 1871 April 24, 1905 - UNTIED STATES v. FLORENTINO RALLOS

    004 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 1881 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 1925 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CANETA

    004 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 2029 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CHAUNCEY MCGOVERN

    004 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 2032 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO NUBLA

    004 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 2052 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES vs LICAS

    004 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 2062 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES ET AL. v. AGUSTINA BARRERA

    004 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 2139 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENRICO ILAO

    004 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 2245 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO JAVATE

    004 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 1910 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN GUSTILO

    004 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 1930 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARGARITO ACABAL, ET AL.

    004 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 2118 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO VALDEHUEZA

    004 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 2231 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAYNAGA

    004 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 2374 April 26, 1905 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    004 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 1181 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENGRACIO VILLAFUERTE

    004 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 1612 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GEORGE GRAY

    004 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 1707 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN QUILATAN, ET AL.

    004 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 1932 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

    004 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 1650 April 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LINO LITONJUA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 1090 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIO GONZALEZ

    004 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 1633 April 29, 1905 - NICOLAS CEPILLO CRUZ v. CHINAMAN CO-CUACO

    004 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 1766 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ANGEL MICHELENA

    004 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 1877 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO GUTIERREZ

    004 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 1934 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LEON, ET AL.

    004 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 1981 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANSELMO DIRIS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 1984 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 1998 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO REDION

    004 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 2057 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO CONCEPCION

    004 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 2158 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN BUDIAO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 502