Ursula Sensano and Mariano Ventura were married but he abandoned her for three years. She later had an affair with Marcelo Ramos who supported her and her child. Ventura charged Sensano and Ramos with adultery and they served their sentences. After reconciling with Ventura but being abandoned again, Sensano returned to Ramos. Ventura then charged them with adultery again seven years later when he returned from being abroad in order to obtain a divorce. The court held that Ventura consented to the adulterous relationship by his long absence and acquiescence, so he was not authorized to institute criminal proceedings under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ursula Sensano and Mariano Ventura were married but he abandoned her for three years. She later had an affair with Marcelo Ramos who supported her and her child. Ventura charged Sensano and Ramos with adultery and they served their sentences. After reconciling with Ventura but being abandoned again, Sensano returned to Ramos. Ventura then charged them with adultery again seven years later when he returned from being abroad in order to obtain a divorce. The court held that Ventura consented to the adulterous relationship by his long absence and acquiescence, so he was not authorized to institute criminal proceedings under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ursula Sensano and Mariano Ventura were married but he abandoned her for three years. She later had an affair with Marcelo Ramos who supported her and her child. Ventura charged Sensano and Ramos with adultery and they served their sentences. After reconciling with Ventura but being abandoned again, Sensano returned to Ramos. Ventura then charged them with adultery again seven years later when he returned from being abroad in order to obtain a divorce. The court held that Ventura consented to the adulterous relationship by his long absence and acquiescence, so he was not authorized to institute criminal proceedings under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
58 PHIL 73 FACTS: Ursula Sensano and Mariano Ventura were married and had a child whom the latter allegedly abandoned when he went and stayed in Cagayan for three years without letters or financial support to the former who worked hard for herself and her son until she met the accused Marcelo Ramos who later took care of them. Ventura charged Sensano and Ramos for adultery, found by the court guilty of the crime charged and served their sentence. Sensano after serving her sentenced and leaving her paramour made steps to reconcile with and go back to her husband but to no avail - She and her child were abandoned for the second time. Thus, they went back to her co-accused Ramos. Despite the knowledge that she resumed living with her codefendant, her husband did nothing to assert his right as her spouse. Instead, he went abroad for seven years and presumably had completely abandoned them.. When Ventura returned home, he charged Sensano of adultery for the second time in order to obtain divorce under Act No. 2710. ISSUE: Whether or not Ramos can file adultery against his spouse for the second time being the offended party. HELD: No. The Court concluded that the evidence in this case as well as the conduct of Ramos showed that he consented to the adulterous relations existing between the accused and former codefendant. He is therefore under the law not authorized to institute the criminal proceeding. Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraphs 1 and 2, are as follows: Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. The crimes 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 the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. The court, in reversing the decision of the court aquo found the argument of the Solicitor General that his seven years of acquiescence in the adultery of his wife is due to his absence in the country which made him impossible to take any action against the accused, to be unmeritorious.