Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > December 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4630 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. TORCUATA GOMEZ, ET AL.

012 Phil 279:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4630. December 19, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TORCUATA GOMEZ and RAMON NARCISO CORONEL, Defendants-Appellants.

Ramon Narciso Coronel, on his own behalf.

Perfecto Salas, for appellant Torcuata Gomez.

Attorney-General Villamor, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE; PRIVATE CRIME; ADULTERY. — According to the old legislation, public prosecutors are not under obligation to prosecute, among other crimes of a private nature, that of adultery defined and punished by article 433 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as the right to bring the corresponding criminal action rests only with the aggrieved husband, so that, according to article 434, no penalty may be imposed for such crime except by virtue of the complaint filed by the aggrieved husband.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — By General Orders, No. 58 which together with amendatory laws enacted by the Philippine Commission is the present law of criminal procedure the right of the aggrieved party was recognized as an exception with respect to crimes of a private nature specified in the Penal Code, the provisions of which, in relation to the exercise of a criminal action governed by the former law of procedure, remained in force.

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — The lack of a complaint or charge duly drawn up and preferred by the aggrieved husband can not be cured by one presented by a provincial fiscal, because such a substitution is not authorized by any provision of the law.

4. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; RETROACTIVE EFFECT; EX POST FACTO LAWS. — Act No. 1773 of the Philippine Commission, which went into force on the 11th of October, 1907, can not be applied retroactively, notwithstanding the fact that it is a statute dealing with criminal procedure, because such application is not therein provided for, and, furthermore, because its provisions are prejudicial to the defendants; therefore, said Act can not be applied to a crime committed prior to the time it went into force, without violating the provisions of article 22 of the Penal Code.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


The complaint upon which these proceedings were brought is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned fiscal charges Torcuata Gomez and Ramon Narciso Coronel with the crime of adultery committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the beginning of the year 1906, until the 30th of September, 1-907, in the municipality of Oroquieta, Province of Misamis, P. I., the said Torcuata Gomez, maliciously, and feloniously, and being then lawfully married to Fabiano Martinez Lao, without the said marriage having been in any manner dissolved, at tempted to lie and did lie with Ramon Narciso Coronel; knowing that the said Torcuata Gomez is a married woman whose marriage is not dissolved, he lay with her, and afterwards lived in marital relations with her in the same house in the said municipality of Oroquieta, with public scandal, all contrary to law. — Jimenez, Province of Misamis, this the 18th day of January, 1908. — (Signed) Jose de la Rama, provincial fiscal of Surigao, Misamis, and Agusan."cralaw virtua1aw library

The case was proceeded with through all its stages against both the accused; the husband as the aggrieved party did not file any charge, although he testified as a witness in the case. On the 25th of January, 1908, the trial judge, considering that the crime of adultery had been proven and that the guilt of the accused Torcuata Gomez and Ramon Narciso Coronel had been established, sentenced each one of them to the penalty of three years, six months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional, to the accessory penalties, and costs. From said judgment the accused have appealed.

In this case it has been fully proven that Ramon Narciso Coronel, by reason of his living in the house of Torcuata Gomez, a woman lawfully married to Fabiano Martinez, contracted with her illicit and hence adulterous relations which lasted for a period of seventeen months, from April, 1906, to September, 1907. There being no necessity of considering the allegations of the defense, this decision will be limited to deciding whether, in view of the fact that no complaint was brought by the aggrieved husband, Fabiano Martinez Lao, it would be lawful to sustain the proceedings and the condemnatory judgment appealed from, merely by virtue of the complaint presented by the provincial fiscal of Misamis.

Proceedings instituted for crimes defined and punished by the Penal Code in force are regulated by the law of criminal procedure, that is, General orders No. 58, and that law recognizes as an exception the right of the offended party in crimes of a private nature, in respect to which the provisions of the Penal Code were still in force; in the application of said provisions, as regards the prosecution, those of the former law of procedure have continued to be observed, since they are in perfect harmony with the code now in force, and the public prosecutor is under no obligation to prosecute, among other crimes of a private nature, that of adultery, which is defined in article 433 of the Penal Code, since the offended husband alone is entitled to bring, such action before the courts.

Article 434 of the said code reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No penalty shall be imposed for the crime of adultery except upon the complaint of the aggrieved husband.

"The latter can enter a complaint against both guilty parties, if alive, and never, if he has consented to the adultery or pardoned either of the culprits."cralaw virtua1aw library

So that, under the provisions of the foregoing article, no complaint or charge having been presented by the husband, Fabiano Martinez, against the parties accused of said crime, no valid judgment could be entered nor could any proceedings be brought against them, in view of the fact that proceedings are instituted in order to prosecute for a crime and to punish the guilty; the absence of a complaint or charge by the aggrieved husband can not be substituted by the complaint filed by the provincial fiscal of Misamis as such a substitution is not authorized by law.

Such has always been the constant and genuine interpretation of the provision of the criminal law in relation to this crime, according to the doctrine laid down by the supreme court of Spain when applying a similar article of the Penal Code of that country, as appears in its decisions of January 17, 1874, and January 16, 1875.

The crime in question was committed prior to the enforcement of Act No. 1773 of the Philippine Commission, which went into effect on the 11th of October, 1907. Although the complaint was filed by the fiscal on the 18th of January, 1908, it is not lawful to attribute retroactive effects to the said Act of the Philippine Commission for the reason that, even though it refers to a matter of procedure, it does not contain any clause making it retroactive in its effects, and furthermore, the provisions thereof if applied now are prejudicial to the accused.

Hence, in view of the terms of the aforesaid article 433 of the Penal Code, the proceedings instituted by virtue of the complaint filed by the fiscal can not be sustained, as they were brought without the necessary previous complaint of the aggrieved husband, and in violation of the criminal law; therefore, the said proceedings, together with the judgment rendered therein, are decidedly null and void.

On these grounds all the proceedings in this case together with the judgment appealed from, are hereby held to be null and void; the bond executed by the accused is set aside with costs de oficio. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





December-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 3391 December 1, 1908 - JUAN N. PASAPORTE v. DOMINGO MARIN

    012 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 3639 December 1, 1908 - RAMON M. DE VIADEMONTE v. M. G. GAVIERES

    012 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 4797 December 1, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GELASIO CASTELLON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 4448 December 3, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. JUAN ARANETA

    012 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. 4292 December 4, 1908 - ARCADIO MAXILOM v. FELIX ESTRELLA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 4490 December 4, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO DIVINO

    012 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 4069 December 5, 1908 - ESTATE OF LUIS GAMBOA CARPIZO v. ROBERTO FLORANZA

    012 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 4603 December 5, 1908 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ALFREDO JEANJAQUET

    012 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 4682 December 9, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. J. BRAGA

    012 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 4696 December 9, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PIO VY GUICO

    012 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 4690 December 10, 1908 - TEODORO M. BEECH v. JUANA JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    012 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. 4240 December 11, 1908 - C. E. HELVIE v. F. M. FARMER, ET AL.

    012 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 4695 December 12, 1908 - NICOMEDES IBAÑES v. ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL.

    012 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 4504 December 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO CUNA

    012 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 4416 December 16, 1908 - MODESTO ACUÑA CO CHONGCO v. EL CHINO DIEVAS

    012 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. 4497 December 16, 1908 - SPRUNGLI & CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    012 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 4888 December 16, 1908 - J. C. CHOY v. GENARO HEREDIA

    012 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 3851 December 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN TOCO

    012 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 4190 December 17, 1908 - IN RE: JOSE MA. CEBALLOS

    012 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 4926 December 17, 1908 - GREGORIO DE LEON v. PADRE SATURNINO TRINIDAD

    012 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 4625 December 18, 1908 - VICENTE BRIONES v. PETRA PLATON

    012 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. 4510 December 19, 1908 - THE CITY OF MANILA v. ATLANTIC, GULP AND PACIFIC COMPANY

    012 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 4630 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. TORCUATA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    012 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 4655 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO DIONISIO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. 4782 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANO ARONCE

    012 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 4803 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BALBINO ADOLFO

    012 Phil 296

  • G.R. No. 4434 December 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. LEODEGARIO HOCBO

    012 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. 4814 December 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUPO CORTES, ET AL.

    012 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 4679 December 22, 1908 - GUEVARA v. CARMEN DE PASCUAL, ET AL.

    012 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 5041 December 22, 1908 - ALFONSO DEBRUNNER v. JOAQUIN JARAMILLO

    012 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 3394 December 23, 1908 - ACISCLO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. TRINIDAD BAUTISTA

    012 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 3677 December 23, 1908 - LUIS LLACER v. FRANCISCO MUÑOZ DE BUSTILLO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 4361 December 24, 1908 - PEDRO ENDEISA v. JOSE M. TALEON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 4429 December 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO GALURAN, ET AL.

    012 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 3942 December 26, 1908 - DAMIANA MANINANG v. AGUSTINA CONSOLACION

    012 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 4214 December 26, 1908 - JOHN W. HAUSSERMANN, ET AL. v. B. F. RAHMEYER, ET AL.

    012 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 4482 December 26, 1908 - GREGORIO N. LEGASPI v. ESTEBAN AGUILAR, ET AL.

    012 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 4451 December 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMPLICIO PEÑA

    012 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 4650 December 29, 1908 - ANDRES GARCHITORENA v. AMBROSIA POSTIGO

    012 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 4827 December 29, 1908 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    012 Phil 380