(16-16) THE UNITED STATES vs CECILIA MEMORACION and DALMACIO URI

G.R. No. L-11371 August 1, 1916

FACTS: The Defendants were charged with the crime of adultery, the complaint stated that the said
accused, Cecilia Memoracion, within the district of the municipality of Albay, Province of Albay, being
legally and lawfully married to the complainant, the offended party Eustaquio Abrigo, did, willfully and
criminally, unite, lie and have carnal intercourse with her coaccused, Dalmacio Uri; that the said accused,
Dalamcio Uri, then knowing that his coaccused, Cecilia Memoracion, was legally and lawfully married to
the aggrieved party, Eustaquio Abrigo, did, willfully and criminally, unite, lie and have carnal intercourse
with his coaccused, Cecilia Memoracion; acts committed with violation of law.

The RTC held that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and sentenced each
of them to be imprisoned for a period of four years, nine months and eleven days of prision
correccional with the accessory penalties of article 61 of the Penal code and each to pay one-half the
costs.

On appeal, it alleges an error in overruling the objection and allowing the taking of evidence with respect
to the alleged marital relation during the testimony of Nicolas Briola is not enough to be a basis of
convicted,

Also, the defendants raise that the court erred in holding the marriage between Memoracion and Abrigo
and in holding that Uri is aware that the two were husband and wife as a proven fact.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contention of the defendants are correct

RULING: No the defendants' contention is not correct. In a complaint for adultery, oral testimony that
the marriage actually is sufficient, provided that it satisfies the conscience of the court. In this case, the
prosecution presented Abrigo and Briola who testified that Memoracion and Abrigo are married. The
Court ruled that the declaration of an offended person as well as of others who have personal
knowledge of the marriage is a competent proof of marriage. Corroboration of evidence is not
absolutely necessary, but is required to present sufficient proof that the marriage actually existed.
Furthermore, subparagraph 28 of Section 334 of Republic Act No. 190 provides that there is a disputable
presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a
lawful contract of marriage. As held in US vs Villafuerte, a man and a woman living in marital relations
under the same roof are presumed to be legitimate spouses, united by virtue of a legal marriage
contract. This presumption can only be rebutted by sufficient contrary evidence. Therefore, the
testimonies of Abrigo and Briola are sufficient to prove that their marriage actually existed. Moreso, the
defendants cannot raise the issue that Uri did not know that Memoracion and Abrigo were married
since the fact that Memoracion and Abrigo were married is well known in the community where the
crime was alleged to have been committed for several years. Uri even visited the home of the spouses
and knew that they were living together. It would be hard to believe that he had visited the home of the
complainant without knowing or even presuming that the two were married. Hence, the court ruled
that the defendants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of adultery.