GR L 28081; (January, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28081. January 21, 1974.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JERRY VELASCO Y CABAHUG, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Upon the sworn complaint of Maria Loreto Mas, the accused Jerry Velasco y Cabahug was tried and convicted of the crime of rape. In a decision dated July 2, 1957, the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment, ordered him to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P3,000.00, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed this judgment. After both the appellant and the prosecution had filed their respective briefs, the case was deemed submitted for decision by the Supreme Court on September 10, 1968.
Subsequently, in a manifestation and motion dated December 15, 1973, Atty. Manuel R. Guerrero, formerly counsel for the appellant but now representing both the appellant and the complainant, prayed for the termination of the criminal action. The motion sought the dismissal of the case and the cancellation of the appellant’s bail bond. The ground cited was that the appellant, Jerry Velasco, and the complainant, Maria Loreto Mas, had contracted marriage on December 22, 1970, before Judge Jesus P. Morfe of the Manila Court of First Instance. A duly certified xerox copy of the marriage contract was attached to the motion, which was verified and sworn to by the complainant, who signed the verification using her married name, Maria Loreto M. Velasco.
ISSUE
Whether the subsequent marriage between the accused and the offended party extinguishes the criminal action for rape, thereby rendering the case moot and academic.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the criminal case. The legal logic is anchored on a specific provision of the Revised Penal Code. Paragraph 4 of Article 344 explicitly states that the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action for rape. This legal principle is well-established, as cited in the precedent of Laceste vs. Santos (56 Phil. 472). The Court examined the submitted evidence, the marriage contract, and found no indication that the marriage was entered into in bad faith or for the sole purpose of extinguishing criminal liability. Consequently, the legal effect of the valid marriage is the extinction of the criminal action. Since the basis for the prosecution no longer exists, the pending appeal became moot and academic. Accordingly, the Supreme Court resolved to dismiss the criminal case and ordered the cancellation of the bail bond posted for the provisional liberty of the accused-appellant, without costs.