G.R. No. L-5110
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FABIANA LEGASPI and PAULINO PULONGBARET, defendants-appellants.
August 19, 1909

—

FACTS:
Fabiana Legaspi, a married woman, and Paulino Pulongbaret were charged with adultery. The husband, Sotero Cruz, testified that on the evening of March 23, 1908, he found his wife had left their home. His suspicions aroused, he searched for her and found her at her aunt’s house. He observed through a crack in a shutter and discovered the two accused flagrante delicto. He then called a policeman, who, after obtaining a written order, joined Cruz and likewise found Legaspi and Pulongbaret in bed together, leading to their arrest.

The policeman corroborated the husband’s testimony. Pulongbaret admitted being alone in the room with Legaspi at the time of arrest, and that she was in bed, but denied being in bed with her or having criminal relations. Legaspi did not testify.

Appellants contended that the information was insufficient and that the evidence did not establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the specific acts of illicit relations or carnal access. The trial court convicted them, applying Article 11 of the Penal Code (mitigating circumstance for uncivilized or low intelligence persons) and sentencing them to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional.

ISSUE:
1. Is the information for the crime of adultery sufficient?
2. Is circumstantial evidence, particularly the unexplained presence of a man with another man’s wife in bed at a late hour, sufficient to prove the crime of adultery?
3. Did the trial court err in applying Article 11 of the Penal Code (mitigating circumstance) in this case?

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled:

1. Yes, the information is sufficient. It clearly and succinctly sets out the names of the defendants, the crime charged, the acts constituting the crime in ordinary language, the jurisdiction, and the name of the offended party, in accordance with Section 6 of General Orders, No. 58.

2. Yes, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove adultery. The Court held that proof of adultery, like most other crimes, can rest on circumstantial evidence that leaves no room for reasonable doubt. The unexplained fact that a man is found at a late hour of the night, alone in a room with another man’s wife, she being in bed and absent from her husband’s home without his consent, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for adultery. The combined testimonies of the husband and the disinterested policeman, corroborated by Pulongbaret’s admission of being in the room alone with Legaspi who was in bed, fully established their guilt.

3. Yes, the trial court erred in applying Article 11 of the Penal Code. There was no evidence to suggest that the defendants were members of uncivilized or semi-civilized tribes, or persons of notably low intelligence, nor were there exceptional circumstances warranting the application of this mitigating circumstance. The Court affirmed the conviction but reversed the penalty imposed by the trial court.

Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. The defendants were each sentenced to three years, six months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional, increasing it from the trial court’s original sentence.