Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5115      November 29, 1909

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MANUEL SAMANIEGO and JUANA BENEDICTO DE PEREZ, defendants-
appellants.

Joaquin Rodriguez Serra, for appellants.

Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey, for appellee.

MORELAND, J.:

On the 20th day of December, 1907, the following information was presented to
the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila against the defendants in this
case:

That on or about 25th day of November, 1907, in the city of Manila,

Philippine Islands, the said Manuel Samaniego did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously lie with and have the sexual intercourse with the
said accused, Juana Benedicto de Perez, who was then and there, as the
said accused, a married woman and the lawfully wedded wife of Jose
Perez, being then and there a married woman and the lawfully wedded
wife of the said Jose Perez Siguenza, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously lie with and have sexual intercourse with the
said accused, Manuel Samaniego.

The defendants were arrested under the said information and were confined in
Bilibid, the said Samaniego on the 21st day of December, 1907, and the said
Juana Benedicto de Perez on the 26th of the same month. after the arrest of the
said defendants, Juana Benedicto de Perez, at the instance of the prosecuting
attorney, was examined by three physicians for the purpose of determining her
mental condition. On the 27th day of December, 1907, the doctors made their
report to the Court of First Instance, expressing the opinion that the said Juana
Benedicto de Perez was mentally deranged. On the 7th day of January, 1908,
the defendants were tried on the charge of adultery, as presented in said
information, and, after the introduction of the proofs attorney and the trial court
believed that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the conviction of either of
the defendants, and they were both accordingly acquitted of that charge. In the
judgment acquitting the defendants the court included permission to the
prosecuting attorney to file against either or both of the said defendants a new
information charging them with the crime defined in article 441 of the Penal
Code. On the 8th day of January, 1908, pursuant to such permission, the
prosecuting attorney presented against both of the defendants an information
charging them with the crime mentioned in said article, as follows:

That on and for many weeks prior to the 27th day of November, 1907, in
the city of Manila, Philippine Islands. the said Juana Juana Benedicto De
Perez was a married woman, and that the said Manuel Samaniego knew
that she was married and united in the bonds of matrimony with and was
the legitimate consort of Jose Perez Siguenza; that during the period of
time above expressed the said Manuel Samaniego and Juana Benedicto
de Perez, willfully, illegally, and criminally and scandalously, without having
any matrimonial tie between them, habitually appeared together in public
places and frequented together places of recreation, suspicious places,
vacant houses, and houses of bad repute, in the daytime as well as in the
nighttime; and lewdly and indecently went to the bed together in the house
of the husband of the said Juana Benedicto de Perez during the late hours
of the night, dressed only in their night clothes, and in decorously,
indecently, and immodestly embraced each other and caressed each other
in the presence of the family, children, and servants of the said husband of
Juana Benedicto de Perez; all with public scandal and with scandal to the
community, and with shame and humiliation to the husband and family of
the said Juana Benedicto de Perez.

After the presentation of this information, it appearing that the proofs under the
charge therein contained would be the same as were those under the charge in
the information first herein set forth, the prosecuting attorney and the attorneys
for the defendants agreed to submit and did submit the case to the court for final
determination upon the proofs already taken in the trial on the charge of
February, 1908, the trial court rendered a decision in which he found the
defendants guilty of the crime charged, condemning the defendant Samaniego to
the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum degree and the ordering the
defendant Juana Benedicto de Perez confined in an asylum for the insane until
the further order of the court. On the same day the defendants excepted to said
decision and made a motion for a new trial. On the 12th day of February said
court, upon its own motion, and, so far as appears of record, without notice to or
consent of the defendants or their attorneys made an order reopening said case
"for the purpose only, " as expressed in the order, " of receiving evidence as to
the publicity of the acts charged in the complaint." On the 15th day of April,
following, additional evidence was taken in the case and used by the court as the
basis for a further judgment in the action. This was done over the objections and
exception of defendant's attorneys. On the 18th day of April the courts rendered
a decision affirming the judgment rendered by him on the 5th day of February in
the same case. In the same decision he denied defendant's motion for a new
trial.

The witnesses for the prosecution during the trial of the defendants on the charge
made in the first information, viz, that of adultery, were Jose Perez, the husband
of Juana Benedicto de Perez, three of his children, and his cochero. The
husband testified that Juana, after having lived with him for more than twenty
years, and having borne him more than five children, expressed the desire to
separate from him on account of the physical abuse and ill treatment which she
had received and was receiving at his hands. He testified further that he himself
desired to terminate his marital relations with her and that he wanted a divorce;
and, as a preliminary step to that end, we obtained her arrest at the hands of the
police, who, at his request, conducted her in a patrol wagon publicly through the
streets of the city of Manila to an asylum for the insane, where she was detained
and imprisoned against her will. He declared further that the reason why he thus
humiliated and disgraced her and deprived her of her liberty was his ardent
desire to save her soul; that, in ordering her arrest and reclusion, he was acting
under the advice and counsel of various lawyers and doctors. He further testified
that, after her arrest, she many times implored him to give her back her liberty
and permit her to return to her family; and that, during one of such supplications,
she admitted to him that the defendant Samaniego was her friend, but, at the
same time, denied that he had ever taken advantage of that friendship in any
way whatever.

In attempting to prove the adultery alleged in the information, the prosecution

presented as witnesses the persons above mentioned, viz Caridad Perez,
daughter of the defendant Juana; Rafael Perez, a student of medicine, 18 years
of age, son of the defendant Juana; Concepcion Perez, 12 years of age,
daughter of the defendant Juana; together with the cochero of the family, all of
whom lived with the accused, Juana, and her husband at No. 257 Calle
Nozaleda, Manila.

According to the testimony of these witnesses, the kitchen and the toilet of the
house, no,. 257 Nozalada, are situated on the ground floor. Here slept
the cochero in a bed called by the family a bench. This was the only bed in the
lower part of the house which could possibly be used for any purpose.lawphil.net
On the night if the 6th of November, 1907, the accused, Juana Benedicto de
Perez, accompanied by her daughters, attended a dance given by a friend. The
other accused, Samaniego, was also present. Juana and her daughters returned
home late at night. There were then present in the house the accused, Juana
Benedicto de Perez; her three daughters, Caridad, Rosario, and Conchita, and a
friend of Conchita; her son Rafael; a younger son, Manolo; and the cochero.
When the mother and the daughters who and attended the dance with her were
preparing for bed, Conchita discovered that there was a stranger in the lower part
of the house and by her cries brought the household to the spot. She declares in
her testimony that when she first saw the stranger he was near
the cochero's bed and while she was watching the movements of the stranger,
her mother went below and appeared to be talking with him; that not for a
moment did she lose sight of her mother during all the occurrence.

The cochero testified that the stranger was Samaniego and that he came first to
the cochero's bed and talked with him a while, but afterwards the cochero went
to asleep, and later, on hearing the cries of Conchita, he saw Samaniego trying
to conceal himself in the kitchen and also observed that the caused, Juana
Benedicto de Perez, was going up and down the stairs.

The married daughter, Caridad, who, it appears, was not at the dance, testified
that, when Conchita informed the family that a stranger was in the lower part of
the house, she awoke her brother Rafael, who accompanied her below, where
they found the defendant Samaniego, dressed only in his drawers; that she gave
him a blow in the face and ordered him immediately to quit the house; that he
asked her pardon and requested permission to put on his clothes; that
permission to do so was refused and she and her brother ejected him from the
house by force and later the cochero handed him his clothes over the wall.

Caridad also testified that Samaniego was once at the house and talked with her
mother though the window from the street, and on that occasion her mother
delivered to him a pawn ticket; that once when she and her mother were in a
carromata on the streets the defendant approached them and spoke to her
mother. The testimony of Rafael shows that one morning, as he was returning
from the hospital in Quiapo, he saw the defendant Samaniego on foot near the
carromata of his mother in the Botanical Garden talking to her.

Luisa Avesilla testified that the accused, Juana Benedicto de Perez, pais the
board of Samaniego for three months in a restaurant where she was cashier, and
that on one occasion Juana ate with Samaniego in the restaurant. On that
occasion she was accompanied by her grandson.
The cochero testified that he frequently had as passengers in the carromata the
two defendants; that on one occasion he had waited for them while they went to
a house in Calle Cervantes, and on another occasion they had gone into a house
on Calle Malacañang, the witness supposing that the house was unoccupied
because the accused, Juana, had told him that she was looking for a house to
rent; that the witness at no time observed anything improper in the conduct or
deportment of the two defendants. There is no proof whatever that these were
places of bad repute or that any of them were unoccupied.

Upon the proofs above stated, which are all of the proofs adduced in the trial on
the charge of adultery and are the same proofs upon which the defendants were
acquitted of that charge, the prosecuting attorney recommended that the
defendants be convicted of the crime defined in article 441 of the Penal Code, of
which they stood charged, and the court thereupon convicted them thereof.

The acts complained of lack many of the elements essential to bring them within
the purview of the article of the Penal Code invoked by the prosecution. Every
act that was in anywise public fails entirely of those qualities which offend
modesty and good morals by "grievous scandal or enormity." The occurrence at
the residence on the night of the 6th of November did not have that publicity
which is required by the article of the Penal Code referred to (U. S. vs. Catajay, 6
Phil. Rep., 398; supreme court of Spain, April 13, 1885, December 14, 1903, and
January 27, 1908; Viada, vol. 3, p. 130.)

The evidence introduced on the reopening adds nothing to the case already
made by the prosecution. The case was reopened for a particular purpose and
the evidence to be introduced, if any, was restricted to a particular condition, viz,
the "publicity or non-publicity of the acts charged in the complaint." On the
reopening, evidence was presented by the prosecution in relation to the alleged
occurrence between the defendants in Plaza Palacio. Concerning this incident
testimony had already been given on the trial by the witness Rafael Perez.
Testimony was also given on the reopening by the same witness as to an
occurrence between the defendants one morning in the Botanical Garden. In
relation to this same event he had already given this testimony on the trial. His
evidence as to these two events given on the reopening of the case is wholly
inconsistent with, if not absolutely contradictory of, his testimony in relation to the
same events given on the trial. Such testimony can have no weight.

The other testimony given on the reopening by this witness and the testimony of
the witness Amadeo Pacheco can have no bearing or weight in the decision of
this case because such testimony relates to the acts and relations between the
defendants which are not "charged in the complaint" and concerning which no
evidence whatever had been offered on the trial.
In the judgment of this court the evidence fails to show the defendants guilty of
the crime charged.

The judgments of conviction of the trial court is, therefore, reversed, the
defendants acquitted and their discharge from custody ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.