G.R. No. 96602 - Arroyo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

Dr. Jorge B. Neri filed a criminal complaint for adultery against his wife, Ruby Vera Neri, and Eduardo Arroyo, alleging the offense occurred on November 2, 1982, in Baguio City.
Both defendants pleaded not guilty, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them of adultery under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code.
The RTC's findings included details of the events on the day of the alleged adultery, including the presence of witnesses and the timeline of actions taken by the accused.

Petitioner Arroyo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, while Ruby Vera Neri sought a new trial, claiming her husband had pardoned her and later remarried.
Both motions were denied by the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner Arroyo subsequently filed a Petition for Review (G.R. No. 96602), which was denied, while Ruby Vera Neri filed a separate Petition for Review (G.R. No. 96715).

The two cases were consolidated for deliberation by the Court.
Dr. Neri later filed a manifestation requesting the dismissal of the case, claiming he had "tacitly consented" to his wife's infidelity.
The Solicitor-General was asked to comment on this manifestation, and the consolidated cases were reassigned to the First Division for further deliberation.

In G.R. No. 96602, Arroyo argued that Dr. Neri's affidavit raised doubts about his credibility and that the prosecution failed to prove adultery occurred on the specified date.
In G.R. No. 96715, Neri contended that the Court of Appeals erred in denying his motion for reconsideration and that his constitutional rights were violated.

The Court emphasized that findings of fact and credibility determinations made by the trial court are generally not disturbed in certiorari proceedings.
The Court upheld the trial court's acceptance of Dr. Neri's testimony regarding his wife's admission of infidelity, ruling that it did not violate her right against self-incrimination.

The Court clarified that Dr. Neri was not acting as a peace officer during his inquiry into his wife's infidelity, thus her admission was admissible.
The Court referenced previous rulings affirming that confessions made outside of custodial interrogation are valid.

The Court addressed the defense of pari delicto, stating that it does not apply in this case as Dr. Neri did not consent to the adulterous relationship.
The concept of pari delicto is not found in the Revised Penal Code but in the Civil Code, and it does not pertain to the current criminal proceedings.

The Court expressed skepticism regarding Dr. Neri's later manifestation, viewing it as an unreliable attempt to recant his previous testimony.
The Court noted that recantations do not automatically warrant a new trial and must be evaluated in the context of the entire case.

The Court reiterated that for a pardon or consent to be valid in adultery cases, it must occur prior to the filing of the complaint.
Dr. Neri's affidavit and compromise agreement were executed after the...continue reading