PILAPIL VS IBAY-SOMERA

MARCH 28, 2013

PILAPIL vs. HON IBAY-SOMERA, VICTOR AND GEILING et al
G.R. No. 80116
June 30, 1989
FACTS: Petitioner Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private
respondent Erich Geiling, a German national, were married in Germany.
After about three and a half years of marriage, such connubial
disharmony eventuated in Geiling initiating a divorce proceeding
against Pilapil in Germany. The Local Court, Federal Republic of
Germany, promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of
marriage of the spouses.
More than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, Geiling
filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila
alleging in one that, while still married to said Geiling, Pilapil had an
affair with a certain William Chia. The Assistant Fiscal, after the
corresponding investigation, recommended the dismissal of the cases
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. However, upon review, the
respondent city fiscal Victor approved a resolution directing the filing of
2 complaint for adultery against the petitioner. The case entitled PP
Philippines vs. Pilapil and Chia was assigned to the court presided by
the respondent judge Ibay-Somera.
A motion to quash was filed in the same case which was denied by the
respondent. Pilapil filed this special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition, with a prayer for a TRO, seeking the annulment of the
order of the lower court denying her motion to quash.
As cogently argued by Pilapil, Article 344 of the RPC thus presupposes
that the marital relationship is still subsisting at the time of the
institution of the criminal action for adultery.
ISSUES:
1. Did Geiling have legal capacity at the time of the filing of the
complaint for adultery, considering that it was done after obtaining a
divorce decree?
2. Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground
of adultery even though they are no longer husband and wife as
decree of divorce was already issued.
HELD:

WHEREFORE, the questioned order denying petitioners MTQ is SET

ASIDE and another one entered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. The TRO issued in this case is hereby made permanent.
1. NO. Under Article 344 of the RPC, the crime of adultery cannot be
prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the
offended spouse. It has long since been established, with unwavering
consistency, that compliance with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not
merely a formal, requirement.
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. This is a logical consequence since the
raison detre of said provision of law would be absent where the
supposed offended party had ceased to be the spouse of the alleged
offender at the time of the filing of the criminal case.
Stated differently, the inquiry would be whether it is necessary in the
commencement of a criminal action for adultery that the marital bonds
between the complainant and the accused be unsevered and existing
at the time of the institution of the action by the former against the
latter.
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 Under the
same considerations and rationale, 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.
2. The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and
concubinage, the person who can legally file the complaint should be
the offended spouse and nobody else.
Though in this case, it
appeared that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter
obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of
Germany, and said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in
the Philippines in so far as he is concerned. Thus, under the same
consideration and rationale, private respondent is no longer the
husband of petitioner and has no legal standing to commence the
adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at
the time he filed suit.