People v. Gallegos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A complaint for adultery was filed by the offended husband against Mariano M. Gallegos and Benita Antioquia. Mariano M. Gallegos was arrested, but Benita Antioquia could not be found. A preliminary examination was held for Gallegos, after which he was held for trial. Procedural History: The offended person filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance, accusing Mariano M. Gallegos and Benita Antioquia of adultery committed between November 1914 and October 1916. The complaint alleged that Gallegos, knowing Antioquia was married, lay with her several times, and Antioquia, knowing Gallegos was not her husband, lay with him, resulting in a daughter. The defendant Mariano M. Gallegos was arraigned, tried, found guilty, and sentenced by the Honorable Adolph Wislizenus. A new order of arrest was issued for Benita Antioquia. Gallegos appealed. The Petition: At the opening of the trial, the attorney for Mariano M. Gallegos moved for a suspension of the trial until his codefendant could be arrested, which was denied. The appellant alleged that the lower court erred in compelling him to proceed to trial alone in the absence of his codefendant. He also alleged error in permitting the case to be tried by a private attorney and in excusing the prosecuting attorney, and in permitting the prosecution to present additional proof relating to the jurisdiction of the court after closing its case.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in compelling the appellant to proceed to trial alone in the absence of his codefendant. Whether the lower court erred in permitting the case to be tried by a private attorney and in excusing the prosecuting attorney from attending the hearing. Whether the lower court erred in permitting the prosecution, after it had closed its case, to present additional proof relating to the jurisdiction of the court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The sentence of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of separate trial: The Court held that while the law requires the offended husband to institute the criminal action for adultery against both alleged culprits, there is no provision requiring them to be tried jointly. Section 33 of General Orders No. 58 permits separate trials. The mere fact that the complaint names both parties does not prevent separate trials or the dismissal of the complaint as to one under certain conditions. The Court cited cases where one party died or was ignorant of the woman's marital status, allowing for separate trials. In this case, the codefendant could not be apprehended after due diligence, justifying a separate trial for the appellant. On the issue of private prosecutor: The Court found no error in permitting the case to be tried by a private attorney and excusing the prosecuting attorney. Section 38 of General Orders No. 58 permits the court to appoint an attorney to perform the duties of the prosecuting attorney if the latter is absent. The Court noted that it is common practice for prosecuting attorneys to turn over the active conduct of certain criminal cases to counsel employed by private prosecutors, provided the fiscal retains control and assumes responsibility. The defendant did not object to the permission granted. On the issue of additional evidence: The Court held that the lower court did not err in permitting the prosecution to present additional proof relating to the jurisdiction of the court after closing its case. Section 31 of General Orders No. 58 allows the court, in furtherance of justice, to permit parties to offer new and additional evidence bearing upon the main issue. The question of jurisdiction is always important, and if evidence is necessary to prove it, the court may permit its presentation before the trial closes. Furthermore, the Court noted that even without the additional proof, the court could have taken judicial notice of the fact that the crime was committed within its jurisdiction based on the evidence adduced.
Main Doctrine
In a criminal action for adultery, where the complaint includes both alleged culprits, one defendant may be tried alone even if the codefendant has not been arrested and brought to trial, provided the offended party has instituted the action against both.