G.R. No. 36270 - People vs. Infante

The case involved charges of adultery filed against Consolacion Infante and Emeterio Ramos by Manuel Artigas, Jr., the offended party.
Initially, both accused pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
Later, prior to trial, they moved to withdraw their plea of not guilty and substituted it with a plea of guilty.

After the substitution of plea, the trial judge rendered a sentence of two years, four months, and one day of imprisonment (prision correccional) for each accused, along with accessory penalties as prescribed by law.
They were also ordered to pay one-half of the costs involved in the prosecution.
The sentencing was consistent with the penalty provided under the old Penal Code for the crime charged.

Consolacion Infante appealed the judgment, basing her appeal on an assertion regarding her plea.
It was argued that her attorney had assured her that the plea of guilty would only result in a minimum penalty that would not exceed six months.
The appellate court, however, dismissed this claim as the question of such an assurance fell outside its purview, stating that the appellate court was not to intervene on whether the plea was based on the assurance by her counsel.

Subsequent to the submission of the case to the Supreme Court, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of Consolacion Infante.
The motion was based on an affidavit executed by Manuel Artigas, Jr., wherein he pardoned his guilty spouse for her infidelity, i.e., Elisa’s offense.
The Supreme Court addressed this motion by focusing on the applicable legal provisions which affect the pardon as a bar to prosecution.

Article 344 (second paragraph) of the Revised Penal Code was pivotal in the Supreme Court’s decision.

This provision clearly states that the offended party is barred from instituting a criminal prosecution if he has consented or pardoned the offenders.
It further emphasizes that any such pardon must predate the institution of the criminal prosecution and must apply to both offenders if they are alive.

Article 435 of the old Penal Code allowed the husband to remit the penalty imposed on his wife, and by extension, the penalty on the wife's paramour was also remitted.
However, with the passing of Act No. 1773, section 2, the provisions of the old Penal Code were repealed.

The Revised Penal Code’s repeal of the old Penal Code did not revive any provisions from the latter that were no longer in force, thus affecting the applicability of the pardon in this case.

The crime committed against Consolacion Infante was classified under article 333 of the Revised Penal Code.
The acceptance of the plea of guilty was recognized as a mitigating circumstance.

This mitigating circumstance warranted the imposition of a penalty in its minimum degree.

The minimum penalty administered was consistent with the penalty meted out under the old Penal Code.

Whether the substitution of the plea from not guilty to guilty was legally acceptable in light of the attorney’s assurance regarding the minimum penalty.
The appellate court's jurisdiction to review issues related to the plea's basis or associated assurances provided by counsel.

Whether the motion to dismiss on the ground of pardon, based on the affidavit by Manuel Artigas, Jr., could effectively bar the prosecution for adultery.
The legal effect of the timing of the pardon – specifically, whether it was granted before the institution of criminal prosecution.
The requirement that the pardon must extend to both offenders in the case for the bar to be effective.

The proper interpretation of the second paragraph of article 344 of the Revised Penal Code as it pertains to dismissing criminal cases based on a pardon by the offended party.
How the repeal of the provisions of the old Penal Code (including article 435) influences the present application of the law regarding pardons.

Whether the imposition of the minimum penalty was justified under the circumstances given the plea of guilty as a mitigating factor.
The extent to which the sentence under the Revised Penal Code should mirror that offered under the old Penal Code when mitigating circumstances are present.