Statement of Facts

Complainant Christopher Patrick Casserly, legal age, Irish Citizen and

presently residing at Calle Marina 29, 2-1 08005 Barcelona Spain filed a
complaint for Adultery under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code against
respondent Mia Alhambra Rota and Steven Edward Hubbard.

On March 22, 2010, Respondent Rota and Complainant Casserly were

married at Binan, Laguna. After few months of getting married, they both decided
to move to Barcelona, Spain and live together with Rotas son from a previous
relationship.

October 2013, respondent informed complainant Casserly that her father

passed away and she needed to go back to the Philippines together with
Summer. Complainant gave 300,000.00 for the funeral expenses. Later on,
complainant discovered that the father was still alive and the reason for going
back to the Philippines is only to ruse for money because Rota still wanted to
have a luxurious way of living.

December 2013, complainant followed his family to the Philippines and

spent Christmas together in Palawan. He thought that they can start living with a
new family life together but when he left on January 2014, they planned that they
will move to Ireland.

March 24, 2014, respondent wanted them to be back together but then
again, on April 2014 the complainant received email from Rota that everything is
over between them and she is already seeing another man. Rota informed him
that Summers first birthday will be celebrated in Thailand and if ever he wants to
see his daughter he can go there but when complainant went to Thailand, Rota
didnt show up. January 2015, complainant saw Summer personally and he was
also surprised seeing Rota pregnant with another man.

The version of defense as follows:

Respondent Mia Alhambra Rota, Filipino, legal age, residing at Ortigas

Avenue, Pasig City testified that there was no probable cause to charge her a
crime of adultery. That she failed to alleged that the acts were committed in the
Philippines. She claimed that after being away for several months, complainant
saw her pregnant and saw photos of her with Mr. Hubbard in social media that it
only shows good relations with him. She asserted that the fact of being pregnant
does not automatically mean that she had sexual intercourse with another man
considering that theres a lot of technological advances that trends now a days.
 Respondent also insisted that the complainant never saw her and Mr.
Hubbard together especially during the time when she is pregnant. Complainant
simply assumed that Mr. Hubbard was the man she had relation with.

Respondent alleged that the complainant couldnt prosecute them

because he was agreed to its commission. So, Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules
of Court provides that:

Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions:

The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The
offended part cannot institute criminal prosecution without including
the guilty parties, if both alive, nor, in any case, if the offended party
has consented to the offense or pardoned the offenders

Respondent therefore execute the Counter-Affidavit to rebut the charges

against them, to attest to the truth of all the foregoing, and to move the dismissal
of the Complaint against them and for a positive declaration or finding by that
there exists no probable cause to believe that they committed the crime
that was being charged to them.
Related Supreme Court Decisions:

- G.R. No. 96602 November 19, 1991

- G.R. No. 155409

- G.R. No. L-12724 August 10, 1917

-Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code

-Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (4) Adultery
or Concubinage

Related informations (Adultery)

What are the elements of adultery?

The elements of adultery are:
1. That the woman is married;
2. That she had sexual intercourse with a man not her husband;
3. That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to be married.

Who are liable for the crime of adultery?

The persons liable for the crime of adultery are:
1. The married woman who engages in sexual intercourse with a man not her husband;
2. The man who, aware of the marriage of the woman, has sexual intercourse with her.

Can an offended husband be allowed to charge his offending wife only once with the crime of
adultery?

No. A husband may charge his adulterous wife and her lover as many count of the crime of adultery as the
number of known sexual transgressions by the guilty parties.

Adultery is a crime of result and not of tendency. It is an instantaneous crime which is

consummated and exhausted or completed at the moment of the carnal union. Therefore, each
sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery. There is no constitutional or legal provision
which bars the filing of as many complaints for adultery as there were adulterous acts committed,
each constituting one crime. (People v. Zapata, G.R. No. L-3047, 16 May, 1951)
What are the requirements of pardon?
The requirements of pardon are as follows:
1. The pardon must come before the institution of the criminal prosecution;
2. Both offenders must be pardoned.

Must the pardon by the husband of his wife be explicit?

A pardon can also be implied. There is an implied pardon when the husband engages in an act of
intercourse with the offending spouse subsequent to the adulterous conduct of his wife.