G.R. No. L-47498. May 7, 1987. PETRONILO LIGTAS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS:

Petronilo Ligtas was convicted of adultery by the Court of First Instance of Bohol, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The established facts show that on December 14, 1972, the complainant, Tomas Pigte, discovered his wife, Lucia Estillore, and the petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse. Lucia later confessed to a longstanding illicit relationship with Ligtas. Following the incident, Tomas executed an affidavit (Exhibit “C”) before the Chief of Police, stating he had “in mind of giving my wife apology” under certain conditions, including that his wife would live separately from him and assume support for their children. However, this affidavit was written in English, a language Tomas, an illiterate, did not understand.
Subsequently, Tomas changed his mind and formally filed a complaint for adultery on December 19, 1972. At trial, the petitioner argued that Exhibit “C” constituted an absolute pardon for the offense, barring further prosecution. He contended that the conditions attached to the pardon were void for being contrary to law, morals, and public policy, and thus should be deemed not written, leaving an unconditional pardon.

ISSUE

Whether the affidavit (Exhibit “C”) executed by the offended spouse constitutes a valid pardon that extinguishes the criminal liability for adultery, thereby barring the prosecution of the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the conviction but modifying the penalty. The Court ruled that Exhibit “C” did not constitute a valid pardon. A pardon for adultery, to be effective under the law, must be granted before the institution of the criminal action and must encompass both offenders. The Court found that the affidavit was merely a declaration of a future intention to pardon, contingent upon conditions, and not an actual grant of pardon. It was hastily prepared in a language not understood by the illiterate complainant. More importantly, the complainant’s subsequent act of formally filing the criminal complaint demonstrated he had changed his mind and had not, in fact, pardoned the offense. The Court emphasized that there was neither express pardon, as the affidavit was not a definitive act of forgiveness, nor implied pardon, as the spouses did not continue cohabitation after the discovery of the crime. Since no valid pardon was extended prior to the filing of the case, the prosecution was proper. The penalty was corrected to an indeterminate sentence of two years and four months to four years, nine months, and ten days of prision correccional.