GR 38672; (October, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 38672 October 27, 1933
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFONSO GUINUCUD and ROSARIO TAGAYUN, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The appellants were convicted of adultery by the Court of First Instance of Isabela based on a complaint filed by the husband, Ramon Palattao. The accused admitted the adulterous acts but presented evidence to prove that Ramon had consented to the adultery, which would bar prosecution under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. The evidence showed that Ramon had abandoned his wife, Rosario Tagayun, in April 1930. Despite her efforts at reconciliation, he refused. On July 3, 1930, Ramon induced Rosario to sign a “Couple’s Agreement” (Exhibit 1) stating their mutual separation and granting each other the privilege to love or marry another. Ramon later denied his signature on this document at trial, which the court found to be a falsehood. He also admitted that for over a year before filing the complaint, he knew his wife and her co-accused were living together but took no action.
ISSUE
Whether the husband, Ramon Palattao, consented to or acquiesced in the adultery, thereby barring him from instituting the criminal prosecution under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
Yes. The judgment of conviction is reversed. The Court held that while the “Couple’s Agreement” (Exhibit 1) is void as a prior consent to the commission of the offense, it is competent evidence to explain the husband’s inaction and show his subsequent acquiescence. The consent referred to in Article 344 relates to express or implied acquiescence after the offense. Such consent can be inferred from the husband’s long-continued inaction after learning of the offense. Here, Ramon’s abandonment of his wife, his procurement of the separation agreement, his knowledge of the cohabitation for over a year without taking any action, and his false denial of his signature demonstrate that he tolerated and acquiesced in the adultery. Consequently, he is barred from prosecuting the offense. The Court cited commentaries from Groizard’s Codigo Penal, emphasizing that a husband who transacts with his dishonor and consents to adultery is unworthy to later complain, and that prolonged inaction implies tacit pardon.
AI Generated by Armztrong.