Labaya, Paolo Bernabe E.
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera motion, eventually forcing her to submit a plea of not guilty.
Month, date, year | Ponencia, J. | Topic
PETITIONERS:Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera, presiding judge of
RTC Manila; Hon Luis Victor, City Fiscal of Manila; Erich
Ekkehard Geiling
DOCTRINE/s:
 After a divorce has been decreed, the innocent spouse no longer
has the right to institute proceedings against the offenders where
the statute provides that the innocent spouse shall have the
exclusive right to institute prosecution for adultery. However,
where proceedings have been properly commenced, a
subsequent divorce granted can have no legal effect on the
prosecution of the criminal offense.
 Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in
the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their
national law
FACTS:
1. Pilapil and Geiling, a German national, were married in Germany
under German laws. 3 years into the marriage, Geiling initiated a
divorce proceeding against Pilapil. He claimed that there was failure
of their marriage
2. Pilapil filed a case for legal separation, support, and separation of
property before the RTC of Manila.
3. Eventually a decree of divorce was promulgated in favor of Geiling.
4. More than 5 months after the issuance of the divorce decree, Geiling
filed 2 complaints for adultery before the fiscal of Manila alleging
that Pilapil, while still married to him, had affairs with 2 different
men in 2 different instances.
5. Initially, Assistant Fiscal recommended the dismissal of the cases on
the ground of insufficiency of evidence. However, upon review, the
respondent Fiscal, directed the filing of two complaints. The two
were raffled to separate branches of the Manila RTC.
6. Petitioner filed a petition with the Secretary of Justice requesting that
the resolution of the fiscal be set aside, and the cases against her be
dismissed to which the SOJ gave due course
7. Thereafter, Pilapil filed a motion to defer her arraignment and
suspend proceedings. However, Respondent Judge denied her
8. Thus, a special civil action for certiorari was filed by Pilapil
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether an aggrieved spouse may still file a complaint for adultery
despite having a divorce decree already in effect prior to filing of the
criminal complaint - NO
RULING: WHEREFORE, the questioned order xx SET ASIDE and another
one entered DISMISSING the Complaint
RATIO:
1. Under the RPC, the crime of adultery is one that is considered a
private crime or those that cannot be prosecuted de officio. In this
case, it must be the aggrieved spouse who must institute the
proceeding.
2. In these cases, it is indispensable that the status and capacity of the
complainant be established and must indubitably exist as of the time
he initiates the action.
3. As such, after a divorce has been decreed, the innocent spouse no
longer has the right to institute proceedings against the offenders
where the statute provides that the innocent spouse shall have the
exclusive right to institute prosecution for adultery. However, where
proceedings have been properly commenced, a subsequent divorce
granted can have no legal effect on the prosecution of the criminal
offense
4. The SC looked at American jurisprudence stating the same principle
as that abovementioned. In the American case of Loftus, the
Supreme Court of Iowa stated that the unoffending spouse must be
married to the offending spouse in order for his case to prosper.
5. Thus, the SC applied the same principle to Pilapil’s case
6. In this particular case, the fact that Geiling obtained a valid decree of
divorce, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be
recognized in the Philippine insofar as Geiling is concerned.
7. In the case of Van Dorn v Romillo which had similar facts of foreign
divorce decree, the SC held that private respondent in that case is no
longer husband of petitioner in that case. Thus he had no standing to
sue.
8. Under the same considerations and rationale, Geiling, being no
longer husband of petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the
adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at
 Labaya, Paolo Bernabe E.
the time he filed the suit.