G.R. No. L-3047; May 16, 1951
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Guadalupe Zapata and Dalmacio Bondoc, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

In the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Andres Bondoc filed a complaint for adultery against his wife, Guadalupe Zapata, and Dalmacio Bondoc, for cohabiting and having repeated sexual intercourse from 1946 to March 14, 1947 (Criminal Case No. 426). The wife pleaded guilty and served her sentence. On September 17, 1948, the offended husband filed a second complaint for adulterous acts committed from March 15, 1947, to September 17, 1948 (Criminal Case No. 735). The defendants filed motions to quash the second complaint on the ground of double jeopardy. The trial court granted the motions, holding that the adulterous acts in both complaints constituted one continuous offense. The prosecution appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the filing of the second complaint for adultery, covering a period subsequent to the acts charged in the first complaint, violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

RULING

No. The order quashing the second complaint is reversed and set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial. Adultery is an instantaneous crime consummated and completed at the moment of each carnal union; each sexual intercourse constitutes a separate crime. The concept of a continuous crime requires unity of criminal intent, which is absent here as each adulterous act is a complete crime in itself. A second complaint for acts not included in the first does not place the defendants in double jeopardy. Furthermore, if the second complaint were barred, subsequent adulterous acts, especially where the paramour’s knowledge of the marriage status (a necessary element) may have arisen after the first complaint, would go unpunished. A pardon by the husband for prior acts does not exempt liability for acts committed after the pardon.