G.R. No. L-6984, August 19, 1912
THE UNITED STATES vs. GENOVEVA DESTRITO and GERARDO DE OCAMPO

FACTS

Arcadio de la Ysla filed a complaint for adultery against his wife, Genoveva Destrito, and Gerardo de Ocampo. The original complaint lacked an allegation that the crime was committed within Manila. Before trial, the prosecution moved to amend the complaint by inserting “in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands,” which the court granted without objection from the accused. At trial, evidence showed that Ocampo lived with the married couple in their house at No. 300 Calle Herran, Manila, for eight to nine months. Witnesses, including the husband, testified to seeing the appellants in compromising situations and in the act of cohabitation in that house. The trial court convicted both of adultery, applying the aggravating circumstance of morada (committed in the dwelling of the offended party) for both, and abuse of confidence for Ocampo.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction despite the initial defect in the complaint regarding the place of the crime.
2. Whether the evidence proved the crime was committed within Manila.
3. Whether the evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the aggravating circumstance of morada was correctly applied.

RULING

1. Jurisdiction and Sufficiency of Complaint: The Supreme Court held that objections to the complaint’s sufficiency must be raised at trial. Since the accused did not object below and the defect (lack of allegation on place) was cured by amendment and competent proof, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction.
2. Place of Commission: The evidence, including testimony that the illicit acts occurred at No. 300 Calle Herran, Manila, sufficiently established that the crime was committed within the court’s jurisdiction.
3. Proof of Guilt: The testimony of witnesses, including the offended husband and neighbors who saw the appellants cohabiting, proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants’ denials and alternative explanations (e.g., a quarrel over money or a business accounting) were unconvincing and unsupported by evidence.
4. Aggravating Circumstances:
– Morada: Not applicable. Both appellants had a right to be in the houseGenoveva as the wife and Ocampo as a resident invited by the couple. Thus, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was erroneously applied.
– Abuse of Confidence: Correctly applied to Ocampo. The offended husband treated Ocampo like a son, providing him free lodging and food, and Ocampo betrayed that trust by committing adultery with the wife.

Disposition: The conviction was AFFIRMED with modification regarding the aggravating circumstances. The penalties imposed by the trial court (medium degree for Genoveva, maximum for Ocampo due to abuse of confidence) were upheld, but the aggravating circumstance of morada was eliminated.