Scribd
Upload
94 views1 page

Adultery Case Ruling: Pardon Not Valid

Dr. Jorge B. Neri filed a criminal complaint against his wife Ruby Vera Neri and Eduardo Arroyo for adultery. Both defendants were found guilty by the trial court. Ruby Neri then filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that Dr. Neri had pardoned her, as evidenced by an affidavit of desistance, and they were no longer living together. However, the Court of Appeals denied the motion. The issue is whether Dr. Neri's affidavit operates as a pardon warranting a new trial. The Supreme Court held no, as the affidavit was executed after trial, and once a complaint is filed the case is a public matter beyond the complainant's control. Protection of marriage and family from adul

Uploaded by

maryjovan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
94 views1 page

Adultery Case Ruling: Pardon Not Valid

Dr. Jorge B. Neri filed a criminal complaint against his wife Ruby Vera Neri and Eduardo Arroyo for adultery. Both defendants were found guilty by the trial court. Ruby Neri then filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that Dr. Neri had pardoned her, as evidenced by an affidavit of desistance, and they were no longer living together. However, the Court of Appeals denied the motion. The issue is whether Dr. Neri's affidavit operates as a pardon warranting a new trial. The Supreme Court held no, as the affidavit was executed after trial, and once a complaint is filed the case is a public matter beyond the complainant's control. Protection of marriage and family from adul

Uploaded by

maryjovan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Facts:

Dr. Jorge B. Neri filed a criminal complaint for adultery against his wife, Ruby Vera Neri,
and Eduardo Arroyo committed on 2 November 1982. Both defendants pleaded not guilty but
were subsequently found guilty by the trial court.

When the case was pending with the CA on certiorari, Ruby Neri filed a motion for
reconsideration or a new trial alleging that her husband already pardoned her and had contracted
marriage to another with whom he is presently cohabiting. Dr. Neri also filed a manifestation
praying that the case against petitioners be dismissed as he had "tacitly consented" to his wife's
infidelity. The co-accused petitioners then filed a motion praying for the dismissal of the case
citing as basis the manifestation of Dr. Neri.

CA did not grant the motions.

Issue:

Whether or not Dr. Neri's affidavit of desistance and the compromise agreement operate
as a pardon meriting a new trial.

Held:

No. The rule on pardon is found in Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:

ART. 344.— The crime of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution
without including both parties, if they are both alive, nor in any case, if he shall have consented or
pardoned the offenders. xxx xxx xxx

While there is a conceptual difference between consent and pardon in the sense that
consent is granted prior to the adulterous act while pardon is given after the illicit affair,
nevertheless, for either consent or pardon to benefit the accused, it must be given prior to the
filing of a criminal complaint. In the present case, the affidavit of desistance was executed only
after the trial court had already rendered its decision dated.

It should also be noted that while Article 344 of the Revise Penal Code provides that the
crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted without the offended spouse's complaint. Once the
complaint has been filed, the control of the case passes to the public prosecutor. Enforcement of
our law on adultery is not exclusively, nor even principally, a matter of vindication of the private
honor of the offended spouse; much less is it a matter merely of personal or social hypocrisy. Such
enforcement relates, more importantly, to protection of the basic social institutions of marriage
and the family in the preservation of which the State has the strongest interest; the public policy
here involved is of the most fundamental kind.

ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No. 96602 is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit and this denial is FINAL. The Petition for Review in G.R. No. 96715 is hereby similarly
DENIE D for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.

You might also like