Title
People vs. Infante
Case
G.R. No. 36270
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1932
Adultery case: guilty plea upheld; pardon post-prosecution invalid under Article 344, RPC. Appeal denied; minimum penalty affirmed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 36270)

Charges and Initial Proceedings

Consolacion Infante and Emeterio Ramos were initially charged with the crime of adultery at the behest of Manuel Artigas, Jr. During the arraignment, both defendants entered a plea of not guilty. However, when the case was later called for trial, Infante and Ramos sought to change their plea to guilty. Consequently, the trial judge sentenced them to two years, four months, and one day of imprisonment along with the accessory penalties prescribed by law and ordered them to pay one-half of the court costs.

Appeal and Basis of Decision

Consolacion Infante appealed the conviction, arguing the trial court should consider that her plea of guilty was based on the assurance given by her attorney that the penalty would not exceed six months. The appellate court found that this argument was without merit, as it could not reassess the validity of the plea entered in the lower court.

Pardon and Legal Implications

Following the submission of the case, a motion to dismiss the appeal was filed. This motion was based on an affidavit from Manuel Artigas, Jr., wherein he purportedly pardoned Infante for her infidelity. However, the court found that this attempted pardon was ineffective for two reasons.

Legal Provisions on Pardon

The court referenced the second paragraph of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, which clearly states that the offended party cannot pursue criminal prosecution without including both guilty parties if they are alive, nor if he/she has consented to or pardoned the offenders. This provision requires that any pardon must predate the initiation of the criminal prosecution and must include both offenders to be valid.

Historical Context and Legislative Action

The court noted that prior provisions in the old Penal Code allowed a husband to remit the penalty imposed on his wife, which also operated as a remission for her paramour. However, these provisions became obsolete following the enactment of Act No. 1773, section 2, which repealed them. Importantly, the Revised Penal Code, which sup

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.