G.R. No. 96602 & 96715, November 19, 1991
Eduardo Arroyo, Jr. and Ruby Vera-Neri, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Dr. Jorge B. Neri filed a criminal complaint for adultery against his wife, Ruby Vera-Neri, and Eduardo Arroyo, alleging the crime was committed on November 2, 1982, in Baguio City. The prosecution established that on said date, Neri and Arroyo were together in the master’s bedroom of the Neri condominium for about forty-five minutes after Arroyo arrived in the evening and Neri’s companion was asked to leave. Both accused pleaded not guilty, but the Regional Trial Court convicted them of adultery under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
Following the affirmance, both petitioners filed separate motions for reconsideration and petitions for review before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of these petitions, Dr. Neri filed a Manifestation dated May 14, 1991 (subscribed on August 23, 1991), stating he had “tacitly consented” to his wife’s infidelity and praying for the dismissal of the case. Petitioners subsequently filed motions seeking dismissal or a new trial based on this manifestation.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Dr. Neri’s manifestation of desistance and claim of tacit consent constitute a valid ground for the dismissal of the criminal case for adultery or for the grant of a new trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the convictions. The Court held that a pardon or affidavit of desistance by the offended spouse in adultery cases does not abate the criminal action once it has been instituted. The rationale is that crimes against chastity, such as adultery, are considered public crimes. While the initiation of the complaint is a private right of the offended spouse, the subsequent prosecution is imbued with public interest. The state has a vital concern in the enforcement of penalties to preserve public peace and community welfare. Therefore, the offended spouse cannot divest the state of its authority to prosecute the offense by a subsequent pardon or withdrawal of the complaint.
The Court further found that Dr. Neri’s belated manifestation did not cast reasonable doubt on his original testimony or the factual findings of the lower courts, which were deemed final and conclusive. The claim of tacit consent, raised only after conviction, was viewed with suspicion and could not override the established evidence of guilt. The other issues raised by petitioners, including alleged violation of the right against self-incrimination and the physical impossibility of the act, were either unsubstantiated or involved factual determinations not reviewable in a petition for certiorari. The Court also directed a copy of the resolution and Dr. Neri’s manifestation to the Department of Justice for a possible inquiry into perjury.