G.R. No. 2045: September 20, 1905

FACTS:
The defendants, Vicente Serra and Maria Obleno, had been living together as husband and wife since 1899. Maria Obleno was, in fact, the lawful wife of the plaintiff, Adriano Mortiga. The illicit relationship began in Camalig, Albay, during the revolutionary period. At that time, Vicente Serra was a major under General Paua. After the establishment of American rule, he became the chief of police of Camalig and was known to carry a revolver. Mortiga filed a written complaint for adultery against the defendants on January 15, 1904, before the justice of the peace of Camalig. The case was elevated to the Court of First Instance, where another complaint was filed on February 24, 1904. Mortiga testified that he never consented to the adultery and explained that his delay in filing the case from 1899 to 1904 was due to fear, given Serra’s official position and the unsettled conditions in Albay during and after the revolution.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the complaint was validly filed by the offended husband.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant Vicente Serra knew of Maria Obleno’s existing marriage.
3. Whether the husband’s delay in filing the complaint constituted consent to the adultery, which would extinguish criminal liability.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction of the defendants for adultery, with a modification to the penalty.
1. On the Validity of the Complaint: The Court held that the record conclusively showed Adriano Mortiga had signed, sworn to, and presented the written complaint, thus the requirement that the offended spouse must initiate the action was satisfied. Other technical objections to the complaint not raised in the trial court were deemed waived.
2. On the Knowledge of the Accused: The Court found the evidence sufficient to prove Vicente Serra knew Maria Obleno was married. They lived in the same town as the complainant, and the testimony of Maria’s mother (a defense witness) that the couple fled from Camalig to Marinduque when the relationship began supported this conclusion.
3. On the Delay as Consent: The Court rejected the defense’s claim that Mortiga’s delay constituted consent. Citing Gali vs. Sahagun, the Court ruled that delay alone is not proof of consent. Considering the specific circumstancesthe revolutionary and post-revolutionary turmoil in Albay, Serra’s position as a military officer and later as chief of police, and the general climate of fearMortiga’s explanation for the delay was credible and did not equate to the condonation contemplated under the Penal Code to extinguish the crime.
4. On the Penalty: The Court modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. Applying the medium grade of the penalty for adultery under the circumstances, the Supreme Court sentenced Vicente Serra to three years, six months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional. The judgment was affirmed with this modification.