IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL, petitioner, v. HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, HON LUIS C. VICTOR AND ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING, respondents.
G.R. No. 80116. June 30, 1989.
Facts:
On September 7, 1979, petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil (Filipino citizen) and respondent and respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling, German national, were married at Federal Republic of Germany. They lived together in Malate, Manila and had a child, Isabella Pilapil Geiling.
The private respondent initiated divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany. The local court in Germany promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouse.
On the other hand, petitioner filed an action for legal separation before a trial court in Manila.
After the issuance of the divorce decree, private respondent filed the complaint for adultery before the prosecutor of Manila alleging that the petitioner had an affair William Chia and Jesus Chua while they were still married.
Petitioner filed a petition with the Justice Secretary asking to set aside the cases filed against her and be dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner moved to defer her arraignment and to suspend further proceedings. Justice Secretary Ordoñez issued a resolution directing to move for the dismissal of the complaints against petitioner.
Issue:
Is the action tenable?
Ruling:
Yes. The crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes against chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon sworn written filed by the offended spouse. Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code presupposes that the marital relationship is still subsisting at the time of the institution of the criminal action for adultery. This is logical consequence since the raison d’etre of said provision of law would be absent where the supposed offended party had ceased to be the spouse of the alleged offender at the time of the filing of the criminal case. It is indispensable that the status and capacity of the complainant to commence the action be definitely established and, such status or capacity must indubitably exist as of the time he initiates the action. Thus, the divorce decree is valid not only in his country, may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned – in view of the nationality principle under the Civil Code on the matter of civil status of persons. Private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner and has no legal standing to commence the adultery case. The criminal case filed against petitioner is dismissed.
