—In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove beyond a

reasonable doubt every essential element constituting the

crime, upon which the conviction and punishment must be
based. U.S. vs. Capa and Cariño, 19 Phil. 125.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as is

sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and to
preclude every reasonable hypothesis except that which it
is given to support. It has been said that a reasonable
doubt is the doubt of a reasonable man under all
circumstances of the case. The statement is too general and
includes too much. Neither does the rule that the judge
must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt mean that he
must be convinced to an absolute certainty. This
construction would preclude a conviction upon
circumstantial evidence. U.S. vs. Reyes, 3 Phil. 3.

By reasonable doubt of guilt is not meant that which of

possibility may arise, but it is that doubt engendered by an
investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such
investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty
of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the
law to convict of a criminal charge, but moral certainty is
required as to every proposition of proof requisite to
constitute the offense. U.S. vs. Lasada, 18 Phil. 90.

If the inculpatory facts and circumstances in a criminal

case are capable of two or more explanations, one
consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is
not sufficient to support a conviction. People vs. Abana, 76
Phil. 1; People vs. Agpangan, 79 Phil. 334; People vs.
Bautista, 81 Phil. 78; and People vs. Abendan, 82 Phil. 711.

It is the theory of circumstantial evidence that indicia

that are separately of little importance may, by their
concordant combination and cumulative effect, satisfy the
legal requirements for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
People vs. Viernes, L-9326, June 18, 1956. In order that
circumstantial evidence may constitute proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, there must be a series of circumstances
satisfactorily proved and consistent with each other, of
such nature that every one of them is consistent with
defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with his innocence.
People vs. Mahlon, L-5198, April 17, 1953.
To put it another way, there must be more than one circumstance
and all the circumstances must be consistent with each
other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is
guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the
hypothesis that he is innocent. People vs. Labita, L-8481,
September 15, 1956.

Adultery is not continuing offense; Abuse of unity or

criminal intent or purpose.—The notion or concept of a
continuous crime has its origin in the juridical fiction
favorable to the law transgressors and in many a case
against the interest of society (Cuello Calon, Derecho
Penal, Vol. II. p, 521). For it to exist there should be
plurality of acts performed separately during a period of
time; unity of penal provision infringed upon or violated;
and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that
two or more violations of the same penal provision are
united in one and the same intent leading to the
perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim (Ibid., p.
520). ln adultery, the last unity does not exist because the
culprits perpetrate the crime in every sexual intercourse
and they need not do another or other adulterous acts to
consummate it. People vs. Zapata and Bondoc, 88 Phil. 688.
Conviction for one act does not bar prosecution for other
adulterous acts.

Each sexual intercourse a crime.—Adultery is a crime of

result and not of tendency, as the Supreme Court has held
(S. 10 December 1945); it is an instantaneous crime which
is consummated and exhausted or completed at the
moment of the carnal union. (Cuello Calon, Derecho Penal,
Vol. II, p. 569). Ibid.

Adultery is often proved by circumstantial evidence.

—The nature of the crime of adultery is such that it will
not be often when it can be established by direct evidence.
Nevertheless, strong circumstantial and corroborative
evidence such as will lead the guarded discretion of a
reasonable and just man to the conclusion that the alleged
act has been committed is sufficient to sustain a conviction
for adultery. (Groizard, Codigo Penal, p. 24, et seq.;
Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of June 23, 1874; 1
R.C.L., par. 28) In the case of U.S. vs. Feliciano, 36 Phil.
753, a photograph was introduced in evidence showing
the intimate relations of the two accused. Another witness
testified to having seen them in scant apparel and sleeping
together. The woman and her paramour had 'the
opportunity to satisfy their adulterous inclination. A
finding to the effect that they had carnal relations is
sufficiently in accord with the probabilities of the case and
the proof.

In U.S. vs. Legaspi, 14 Phil. 38, it was held that the finding in
the possession of a married woman of several love
letters signed by her paramour; their having been together
in different places and the fact that they were surprised in
a well known assignation house which the accused woman
admitted to have visited six times in company with her
paramour are data and indications sufficient to convict
them both of adultery.

In another case, People vs. Osorio, CA-G.R. No. 19475-K,

June 12, 1958, the offended husband took a search warrant
and he searched the house where his wife and her
paramour were staying and found them partially disrobed
in one bed, the bed showing signs of having been used,
while their clothes were mixed together, these
circumstances indicate adultery (U.S. vs. Legaspi, supra).

Direct proof of carnal knowledge not necessary.—Direct

proof of carnal knowledge is not necessary to sustain a
conviction for adultery. In the very nature of things, it is
seldom that adultery can be established by direct
evidence. The legal tenet, therefore, has been and still is
that circumstantial and corroborative evidence such as
will lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just
man to ,'the conclusion that the criminal act of adultery
has been committed, will suffice to bring about a conviction
f or that crime. Where defendants, lived together as
husband and wife in different places, at diverse times and
for certain periods and actually were seen lying together at
late' hours to the night in their underwear and caressing
and embracing each other, these facts more than sufficiently
prove the crime of adultery. (U.S; vs. Legaspi, 14
Phil. 38; U.S. vs. Feliciano, 36 Phil. 753; People vs.
Fernando, CA-G.R. No. L-7148-R, promulgated February
15, 1952.) People vs. Dantes, Off. Gaz., Vol. 51, No. 2, Feb.
1955, p. 801.

Circumstantial evidence; Factual situation and

circumstances, not absolutely incompatible with innocence
of accused.—True that the proof of the illicit intercourse
may safely be rested on circumstantial evidence, but the
factual situation in a case and the circumstances relied
upon by the prosecution are not absolutely incompatible
with the innocence of the accused and not incapable of
explanation other than of their guilt. The fact that the
accused met each other once in a while is explained by the
existing relation between them, that is, accused man has
been the repairer of the defective sewing machines of the
spouses and their agent on com-
mission in the sale of machines he could repair because
since 1946, accused woman, with the consent of her
husband, has been engaged in buying defective sewing
machines and selling them after their repair at a gain.
People -vs. Malasig and Retotal, CA-G.R. No. 4666-R, April
29, 1950