G.R. No. 11895 , December 20, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TEODORA TOPIÑO and GABRIEL GUZMAN, defendants. GABRIEL GUZMAN, appellant.

FACTS:
Teodora Topiño and Gabriel Guzman were charged with the crime of adultery. The offended husband, Pedro Mateo, filed the complaint. During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence including: (1) the marriage certificate (Exhibit A) of Pedro Mateo and Teodora Topiño; (2) an affidavit (Exhibit B) executed by Teodora Topiño confessing to having lived conjugally with Gabriel Guzman for about five years and bearing two children by him; and (3) an affidavit (Exhibit C) executed by Gabriel Guzman admitting that he had carnal relations with Teodora Topiño, resulting in two children, and that he continued the relationship even after being informed she was married. Witnesses testified that the accused had lived together as husband and wife for about six to seven years. The defense presented no evidence, instead moving for dismissal on the ground that no complaint from the offended party was presented. The trial court acquitted Teodora Topiño, finding her affidavit (Exhibit B) inadmissible as the prosecution failed to prove it was freely and voluntarily made. However, the court convicted Gabriel Guzman based primarily on his voluntary affidavit (Exhibit C) and corroborating evidence. Guzman was sentenced to prision correccional. He appealed, contesting the court’s jurisdiction, the admissibility of Exhibit C, and the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case.
2. Whether Exhibit C (Guzman’s affidavit) was admissible in evidence.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Gabriel Guzman of adultery.

RULING:
1. On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction. The complaint filed by the offended husband was part of the record, though initially omitted; it was subsequently transmitted to the Supreme Court by order. Thus, the jurisdictional requirement for a private offended party’s complaint in adultery cases was satisfied.

2. On Admissibility of Exhibit C: The Supreme Court affirmed the admissibility of Exhibit C. The testimony established that Guzman himself prepared the rough draft of the affidavit, which was then typewritten, and that he read and signed it voluntarily without any threats, intimidation, or force. It was a free and voluntary confession.

3. On Sufficiency of Evidence: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Guzman’s voluntary confession in Exhibit C, wherein he admitted to having carnal relations with Teodora Topiño knowing she was married, constituted conclusive proof of his guilt. This confession was corroborated by: (a) the marriage certificate (Exhibit A) proving Teodora was legally married to Pedro Mateo; and (b) the testimonies of witnesses who confirmed that Guzman and Topiño lived together as husband and wife for several years and had children. The defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent is unavailing in adultery. Under the Penal Code, the crime is consummated by the voluntary carnal intercourse with a married woman, and the law conclusively presumes the intent from the voluntary act itself. Ignorance of the law or a mistaken belief in the woman’s freedom (based on her alleged statement that a justice of the peace said she was free) does not exempt one from criminal liability.

The Supreme Court modified the penalty, sentencing Gabriel Guzman to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, with the corresponding accessory penalties, and to pay one-half of the costs. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in all other respects.