Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    US vs. Feliciano

    Uploaded by

    christian villamante
    where a man and a woman are charged in the same complaint with the crime of adultery the acquittal of the woman does not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the man, although the offense is one which can only be committed by two persons. Paraphrasing the language somewhat, it can now be held that under a complaint for adultery the acquittal of the man does not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the woman because, among other reasons, the man may not have known that the woman was m

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    US vs. Feliciano

    Uploaded by

    christian villamante
    45 views2 pages
    where a man and a woman are charged in the same complaint with the crime of adultery the acquittal of the woman does not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the man, although the offense is one which can only be committed by two persons. Paraphrasing the language somewhat, it can now be held that under a complaint for adultery the acquittal of the man does not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the woman because, among other reasons, the man may not have known that the woman was m

    Original Title

    US vs. feliciano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    where a man and a woman are charged in the same complaint with the crime of adultery the acquittal of the woman does not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the man, although the offense is one which can only be committed by two persons. Paraphrasing the language somewhat, it can now be held that under a complaint for adultery the acquittal of the man does not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the woman because, among other reasons, the man may not have known that the woman was m

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    45 views2 pages

    US vs. Feliciano

    Uploaded by

    christian villamante
    where a man and a woman are charged in the same complaint with the crime of adultery the acquittal of the woman does not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the man, although the offense is one which can only be committed by two persons. Paraphrasing the language somewhat, it can now be held that under a complaint for adultery the acquittal of the man does not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the woman because, among other reasons, the man may not have known that the woman was m

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-12724            August 10, 1917

    THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,


    vs.
    MARGARITA FELICIANO, defendant-appellant.

    E. F. Du Fresne for appellant.


    Acting Attorney-General Paredes for appellee.

    MALCOLM, J.:

    Felix Atacador filed a complaint against his wife Margarita Feliciano and one Pedro Velasquez,
    charging them with the crime of adultery. After a few witnesses had been called in the separate trial
    of Velasquez, on motion of the prosecution the case was dismissed. On the trial of Margarita
    Feliciano, she was found guilty and sentenced to three years six months and twenty-one days
    of prision correccional, with the costs. From this sentence she has appealed, making four
    assignments of error.

    One assignment of error is that the trial court should have dismissed the case against the accused in
    view of having dismissed the case against her coaccused Velasquez. The argument that the charge
    of adultery, necessarily under on complaint, is indivisible impresses one strongly. However, there is
    now no occasion to discuss this point for in the late case of U. S. vs. Topiño and Guzman ([1916]) 35
    Phil., 901) citing the decision of the supreme court of Spain of January 17, 1889, it was expressly
    held that where a man and a woman are charged in the same complaint with the crime of adultery
    the acquittal of the woman does not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the man, although the
    offense is one which can only be committed by two persons. Paraphrasing the language somewhat,
    it can now be held that under a complaint for adultery the acquittal of the man does not necessarily
    carry with it the acquittal of the woman because, among other reasons, the man may not have
    known that the woman was married.

    Another assignment of error is that the husband was not competent to give testimony as to the
    pregnancy of the wife. As a general rule, the husband can testify against the wife in an adultery case
    because while adultery is in one sense a public crime, it can only be prosecuted with a few
    exceptions on the complaint of the aggrieve party. Adultery would therefore come within the
    provisions of section 383, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, as an action for
    a crime committed by the wife against the husband. Whether we can stretch the proviso to cover the
    testimony of the husband who expresses an opinion as to the pregnancy of the wife is doubtful,
    which, however, in this instance can be waived without decision.

    The other assignments of error go to the merits of the case. The nature of the crime of adultery is
    such that it will not be often when it can be established by direct evidence. Nevertheless, strong
    circumstancial and corroborative evidence such as will lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable
    and just man to the conclusion that the alleged act has been committed is sufficient to sustain a
    conviction for adultery. (5 Groizard, Codigo Penal, pp. 24 et seq.; decision of the supreme court of
    Spain of June 23, 1874; 1. R. C. L., par. 28.) What is the proof, direct or circumstantial, in the
    present case?

    Margarita Feliciano, the accused, was married to the complainant Felix Atacador on January 15,
    1911. She left her husband on February 15, 1916. During the months of May, June, and a part of
    July of the same year, she lived in a rented house in Manila with Pedro Velasquez. The owner, who
    lived in the upper part of the same house, considered them to be man and wife. A photograph shows
    their intimate relations. A witness testified to having seen the accused and Velasquez in scant
    apparel and sleeping together. The woman and her paramour had the opportunity to satisfy their
    adulterous inclination. We think that a finding to the effect that Velasquez and the accused had
    carnal relations is sufficiently in accord with the probabilities of the case and the proof.

    You might also like