G.R. No. L-11371; August 1, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CECILIA MEMORACION and DALMACIO URI, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants, Cecilia Memoracion and Dalmacio Uri, were charged with the crime of adultery. The complaint alleged that on or about June 6, 1915, in Albay, Cecilia Memoracion, being legally married to Eustaquio Abrigo, willfully had carnal intercourse with Dalmacio Uri, who knew of her marital status. After a preliminary examination, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance. The defendants pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court found them guilty and sentenced each to four years, nine months, and eleven days of prision correccional, with accessory penalties and costs. The defendants appealed, raising several assignments of error.

ISSUE:
The main issues, consolidated from the assignments of error, are:
1. Whether oral testimony (from the husband and a witness) is competent to prove the fact of marriage in an adultery case.
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting a marriage certificate (Exhibit G) into evidence.
3. Whether the presumption of marriage under Act No. 190 , Section 334(28), applies given the cohabitation of the spouses.
4. Whether the accused Dalmacio Uri had knowledge of Cecilia Memoracion’s marital status.
5. Whether the guilt of the defendants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

1. On the Competency of Oral Testimony to Prove Marriage: Oral testimony is competent to prove marriage. The declaration of a spouse regarding the existence of their marriage is admissible, and its sufficiency depends on the circumstances of each case. While corroboration may be necessary if the court doubts the testimony, it is not an absolute requirement. In this case, the husband’s testimony was corroborated by the fact that he and Cecilia had lived together as husband and wife for about twenty years and by the testimony of Nicolas Briola, an eyewitness to the wedding. This distinguishes the case from U.S. vs. Nebrida, where the testimony was substantially uncorroborated.

2. On the Admission of the Marriage Certificate (Exhibit G): Although the trial court initially admitted the marriage certificate over objection, it expressly excluded it from consideration in its decision. Therefore, the admission constituted harmless error and provided no ground for reversal.

3. On the Presumption of Marriage: Under Section 334(28) of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed to have entered into a lawful marriage. The record established that Eustaquio Abrigo and Cecilia Memoracion had lived together under the same roof and cohabited for a long period, giving rise to this disputable presumption. No evidence was presented to rebut this presumption.

4. On the Knowledge of the Accused Dalmacio Uri: The evidence established that Dalmacio Uri knew Cecilia was married. The husband testified that their marital status was well-known in the community. Uri had visited the spouses’ house numerous times and had seen them living together. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the Court concluded he must have known they were husband and wife.

5. On the Sufficiency of Evidence of Guilt: The evidence, including eyewitness testimony, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants committed the illicit act as charged. The penalty imposed was in accordance with law.

Therefore, the conviction was upheld.