Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3047)
Petitioner and Respondents
Andres Bondoc filed two separate complaints against his wife Guadalupe Zapata and Dalmacio Bondoc for adulterous acts occurring in two distinct periods: the first from 1946 to March 14, 1947 (Case No. 426), and the second from March 15, 1947 to September 17, 1948 (Case No. 735). The defendants were charged with repeat sexual intercourse during these periods, with Dalmacio charged as a paramour aware of Guadalupe's marital status.
Proceedings and Plea
In the first case, Guadalupe Zapata pleaded guilty and served a penalty of four months of arresto mayor. Upon the filing of the second complaint, the defendants moved to quash it on grounds of double jeopardy, asserting that the second complaint subjected them to punishment twice for the same offense. The trial court agreed and dismissed the second complaint.
Issue: Double Jeopardy and Continuous Crime Doctrine
The trial court's rationale was that the alleged adulterous acts from both complaints constituted one continuous offense, involving the same persons and perpetrators over an uninterrupted period. It held that this continuous character amounted to one offense, thereby invoking the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Legal Analysis on Nature of Adultery
The Supreme Court clarified that under Philippine law—and consistent with Spanish precedent—adultery is a crime of result, not of tendency. It is consummated with each act of sexual intercourse, making it an instantaneous offense. Each act, therefore, constitutes a separate crime. Although the offended party, the marital status, and the interested community remain the same, this does not preclude multiple offenses from multiple acts of adultery.
Continuous Crime Doctrine Requirements
The Court explained that the doctrine of continuous crime applies where there is a plurality of acts over time, unity of penal provision violated, and unity of criminal intent or purpose. In this case, the required unity of criminal intent was absent because each sexual act consummated a distinct offense, and the commission of one did not depend on others.
Distinction Between Separate Offenses
After the final adulterous act considered in the first complaint, the defendants committed further adulterous acts not covered by that complaint, which justified the filing of a new complaint for separate offenses. The Spanish Supreme Court precedent supports the view that repeat acts after an interim period can constitute fresh offenses.
Implications for Double Jeopardy Clause
The Court reasoned that if the second complaint were barred by double jeopardy, it would create a legal vacuum wherein guilty acts committed after acquittal or conviction in the first case could remain unpunished. This is because defenses or acquittals based on knowledge of marital status at the time of the first offense would not apply to subsequent acts where such knowledge existed.
Effects of Spousal Pardon
Moreover, even if the offended husband pardoned previous adulterous acts, such pardon does not cover future offenses committed after the pardon was granted. The criminal liab
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-3047)
Procedural History and Background
- The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga where Andres Bondoc filed a complaint for adultery against Guadalupe Zapata, his wife, and Dalmacio Bondoc, her paramour.
- The first complaint, Criminal Case No. 426, charged the defendants for cohabiting and having repeated sexual intercourse between 1946 and March 14, 1947, with Dalmacio Bondoc knowing Guadalupe Zapata was married.
- Guadalupe Zapata pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four months of arresto mayor, which she served.
- A second complaint, Criminal Case No. 735, was filed by Andres Bondoc on September 17, 1948, covering adultery allegedly committed by the same parties from March 15, 1947, to September 17, 1948.
- The defendants filed motions to quash the second complaint on February 21, 1949, invoking the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
- The trial court upheld the motions, quashing the second complaint, reasoning that the offenses in both complaints were one continuous offense.
- The prosecution appealed the trial court's order quashing the second complaint.
Issue Presented
- Whether the complaints for adultery filed on two separate occasions concerning adultery acts committed during different periods constitute the same offense, thereby invoking the constitutional protection against double jeopardy and barring the filing of the second complaint.
Legal Principles and Interpretations
- Adultery is a crime of result, consummated and completed instantaneously upon the act of carnal union.
- Each act of sexual intercourse between the adulterous parties constitutes a separate crime of adultery.
- The identity of the offended party (the husband), the marital status, and the community interest remain constant but do not negate the commission of multiple crimes if multiple adulterous acts are committed.
- There is no constitutional or statutory provision preventing the f