Facts:
On September 7, 1979, petitioner
Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Geiling, a
German national, were married in the Federal Republic of Germany. The marriage
started auspiciously enough, and the couple lived together for some time in
Malate, Manila. Thereafter, marital discord set in, followed by a separation de
facto between them. After about three and a half years of marriage, private respondent
initiating a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany. He claimed that
there was failure of their marriage and that they had been living apart since
April 1982.
On January 15, 1986, Schoneberg
Local Court promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of
marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to petitioner.
Petitioner, on the other hand, filed an action for legal separation, support
and separation of property before the Regional Trial Court of Manila on January
23, 1983.
More than five months after the
issuance of the divorce decree, private respondent filed two complaints for
adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that, while still married to
said respondent, petitioner "had an affair with a certain William Chia as
early as 1982 and with yet another man named James Chua sometime in 1983".
On October 27, 1987, petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari
and prohibition, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, seeking the annulment
of the order of the lower court denying her motion to quash.
Issue: Whether or not the criminal cases
filed by the German ex-spouse may prosper.
Held: Under Article 344 of the Revised
Penal Code, the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn
written complaint filed by the offended spouse. Corollary to such exclusive
grant of power to the offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily
follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity or legal
representation to do so at the time of the filing of the criminal action.
Hence, Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, thus, presupposes that the
marital relationship is still subsisting at the time of the institution of the
criminal action for adultery.
In the present case, the fact that
private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal
Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be
recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned in view
of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of
persons. Private respondent, being no longer the husband of petitioner, had no
legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was
the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.
No comments:
Post a Comment