ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
THE UNITED STATES,
G. R. No. 11371 August 1, 1916
-versus-
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.
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 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.
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.
|
|