De la Calzada, Geanibev R.

IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL vs. HON. CORONA IBAY-

SOMERA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXVI; HON. LUIS C. VICTOR, in
his capacity as the City Fiscal of Manila; and ERICH
EKKEHARD GEILING, GR 80116, 30 June, 1989, Second
Division, Regalado

Principle in sum:

“There being no marriage from the beginning, any complaint for

adultery filed after said declaration of nullity would no longer have a
leg to stand on. Moreover, what was consequently contemplated and
within the purview of the decision in said case is the situation where
the criminal action for adultery was filed before the termination of the
marriage by a judicial declaration of its nullity ab initio. The same rule
and requisite would necessarily apply where the termination of the
marriage was effected, as in this case, by a valid foreign divorce.”

FACTS:

On September 7, 1979, Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen,

was married to Erich Geiling, a German citizen, in the Federal
Republic of Germany. Shortly after, their only child, Isabella Pilapil
Geiling was born. However, there existed a marital discord between
them, and they separated de facto. After more than three years into
the marriage, Geiling filed for divorce in Germany, which was
granted on January 15, 1986. On June 27, 1986, Geiling filed two
cases of adultery against Imelda and was docketed as Criminal Case
No. 87-52434. After Pilapil tried to file both dismissal of the case and
motion to quash on the lack of jurisdiction, which was denied by the
judge, Pilapil refused to be arraigned and was considered by the
respondent judge as direct contempt, and was fined and was
ordered detained until she submitted herself for arraignment. 
On October 27, 1987, petitioner filed this special civil action for
certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a temporary restraining
order, seeking the annulment of the order of the lower court denying
her motion to quash. The petition is anchored on the main ground
that the court is without jurisdiction "to try and decide the charge of
adultery, which is a private offense that cannot be prosecuted de
officio (sic), since the purported complainant, a foreigner, does not
qualify as an offended spouse having obtained a final divorce decree
under his national law prior to his filing the criminal complaint.

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines states that in cases of

adultery, the complaint should be raised by the offended spouse.
However, by the time of filing the case, Geiling had already been
divorced from Pilapil.

ISSUE:

I. Whether or not private respondent Geiling can prosecute

petitioner Pilapil on the ground of adultery after the issuance
of a final divorce decree

SUPREME COURT’S RULING:

Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery
can only be filed by the offended spouse and nobody else. Corollary
to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to institute
the action, it necessarily follows that such initiator must have the
status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of the
filing of the criminal action. In the case, Geiling charged the petitioner
with adultery after a final divorce decree had been issued from his
country. The final divorce and its legal effects are recognized by the
Philippines in relation to the Nationality   principle   (Art.   15,   Civil  
Code),   hence,   Geiling   no   longer   has   marital   relations   with  
Pilapil and has lost his legal capacity as an offended spouse to file for
the crime of adultery against petitioner.
Summarily, the law clearly provides that only the offended spouse
may complain regarding adultery. Since Geiling and Pilapil were
already divorced, the former does not have the legal standing in the
case. The divorce was valid in Germany and should also be deemed
valid in the Philippines since it was initiated by the foreign spouse.

The SC ruled to dismiss the Criminal Case against Pilapil for lack of
jurisdiction.

xxx