THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v.

URSULA SENSANO
G.R. No. 37720 March 27, 1933

FACTS:

Ursula Sensano and Mariano Ventura were married in 1919. Shortly after the birth of their child,
Mariano went to the Province of Cagayan and remained there for three years. During his three-year
stay, he did not write to his wife nor did he give support to her and the child. Ursula was poor and
illiterate and had no relatives upon whom she could call. Then Marcelo Ramos took her and the child
to live with him.

When Mariano returned in 1924, he filed a case against Ursula and Marcelo for adultery. They were
sentenced to four (4) months and one (1) day. After completing the service of the sentence, Ursula
asked for forgiveness from Mariano, to which the latter replied that she can do whatever she wants
and that he wants nothing to do with her. Mariano then left for Hawaii where he stayed for seven
years.

Abandoned for the second time, Ursula and her child went back to her coaccused Marcelo Ramos (this
was in the year 1924) and they have lived with him ever since .He knew that his wife had lived again
with Marcelo. Upon his return to the Philippines after seven (7) years of stay in Hawaii, he again filed
a case for adultery. The court of first instance sentenced Ursula and Marcelo to 3 years, 6 months, and
21 days in prison. They contended that the court of first instance erred in not considering that Mariano
had already consented to the adultery.

The Solicitor General contended that Mariano’s absence from the Philippines made it impossible for
him to take any action.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Mariano consented to his wife’s adulterous acts.

RULING:

Yes. Mariano consented to his wife’s adulterous acts. Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code,
paragraphs 1 and 2, are as follows:

Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon
a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty
parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the
offenders.

The fact that he told his wife that he had nothing to do with her and that she can do whatever she
wants is considered as consent for the adultery. He did not interfere with his wife’s relations for seven
years despite knowing that the latter was staying again with her lover.

The Solicitor General’s contention has no merit. He could still have taken actions despite his absence
from the country had he wanted to.