GR. No.

People vs Jumawan
GR No. 80116 June 30, 1989

Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera

Facts:

Petitioner and private respondent Eirich Geiling, a German national were married. However,
after three-and-a-half years of marriage, Geiling sought for divorce in Germany, which was granted on
the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. Later on, Geiling filed two complaints for adultery
before the city fiscal of Manila, alleging that while still married to respondent, petitioner had an affair
with William Chia in 1982 and with Jesus Chua in 1983.

Issue:

Whether or not private respondent may institute an action petitioner for the crime of adultery
subsequent to the marriage.

Held:

No. article 344 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the crime adultery must be filed by the
offended spouse only and nobody else. Since Geiling obtained a valid divorce in his country, which was
also recognized in the Philippines in so far as he is concerned, he cannot have the necessary
requirements that the complaint in the action for the crime of adultery must have the status or capacity
must exist at the initiation of the action. Geiling, being no longer the husband of petitioner had no legal
standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the
time he filed the action.
GR No. L-37720 March 27, 1993

People vs. Sensano

Facts:

Respondent and venture was married which resulted to a child. However, the husband
abandoned his wife and child without telling respondent know of neither his whereabouts nor sending
anything for support for three years. Thus, respondent and her child lived with her co-accused, upon the
return of the husband; he filed an action of adultery against the respondent and were sentenced to four
months of imprisonment. After her sentence, respondent left her paramour sought for the forgiveness
of her husband and begged to take her back but to no avail, the husband saying that she could go and
do as she pleased. After abandoning his wife and child again, respondents once again cohabited. The
husband, even with the knowledge of the respondent’s cohabitating, did not do anything to interfere.
The husband abandoned them for seven years and lived in Hawaii, on his return, he charged the
respondents once more of adultery.

Issue:

Whether or not the husband may institute the action for the crime of adultery.

Held:

No. the evidence of this case as well as his conduct show that he consented to the adulterous
relations existing between the respondent. Thus, he is not authorized by law to institute this criminal
action. Art. 344 provides that an offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution if he shall have
consented or pardoned the offenders.
GR No. L – 38672 October 27, 1933

People vs. Guinucud and Tagayun

Facts:

The husband, Pamon Palattao abandoned his wife, Rosario and child, but the respondent wife
made efforts to win back he husband, however, the husband still refused. Ramon then induced his wife
to sign a document saying they could no longer live together and they permit their spouse to love and
marry another. Rosario, lived with her mother and there is no evidence of any misconduct on her part at
that time. During the cross-examination, he admitted that he knew prior to the filing of the complaint,
that his wife and co-accused cohabited but took no action to interfere with the relationship of the
respondents.

Issue:

Whether or not the criminal prosecution may subsist.

Held:

No. under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution if he shall have concerned or pardoned the offenders. Ramon knew of that his wife was
living with co-accused, yet he did not do anything about it, thus, it warrants that he consented to the
adulterous relations existing between the respondents. Their agreement was void so is his consent
before the offense was committed but his tolerance and acquiescence in the offense after it was
committed demonstrate that it is hypocritical pretense for him now to appear in court.
GR Nos. 143468-71

People vs Lizada

Facts:

The accused was charged with four counts of qualified rape under four separate information. The
complainants allege that the victim, Analia, the daughter of Rose Orillosa was sexually abused by Rose’s
common law husband since 1996, when Analia was only eleven years old, until 1998, for two times a
week. The private complainants also allege that Analia was raped in August 1998, on or about
September 15, 1998, on or about October 22, 1998, and on November 5, 1998. However, the medico-
legal officer found out that the hymen of Analia was still intact as to preclude complete penetration by
an average-sized adult Filipino male organ. Thus, upon arraignment, accused entered a plea of not
guilty.

ISSUE: WON the accused is guilty of acts of lasciviousness

HELD:

No. Accused cannot be guilty of the crime o acts of lasciviousness rather he is guilty for the crime of
simple rape under three criminal charges and for the crime of attempted rape. Acts of lasciviousness is
committed by any person upon other person of either sex, under these circumstances: 1) by using force
or intimidation; 2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or 3) when
the offended party is under the age of twelve years old.

The accused sexually abused Analia twice a week from 1996 to 1998. Accused used to place himself on
top of Analia, touched her arms, legs, and sex organ and inserted his finger and penis into her vagina.
Despite the findings of the medico-legal officer that the victim’s hymen was still intact, Analia, being of
tender age, it is possible that the penetration of the male organ went only as deep as her labia. Whether
or not the hymen of the victim was still intact has no substantial bearing on accuse-appellant’s
commission of the crime. Even the slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ into the aperture
constitutes consummated rape.

The accused was also guilty of attempted rape since he desisted from performing all the acts of
execution however, his desistance was not spontaneous as he was impelled to do so only because of the
sudden and unexpected arrival of the brother of the victim.

People vs. Collado

GR. No. 41248

Facts:
 Paula Bautista was alone with her sleeping three year old child in her house when the
respondent went to her house on the pretext of asking for a glass of water. He then approached her,
embraced and kissed her, caught hold of her breast, and threatened to kill her. Then she cried for help
and picked a bolo and tried to strike him with it. When Crispulo Ariola came to her aid, respondent
hurriedly flee from the house.

In his defense, the respondent alleged that Ariola and Palaroan, the witness for the defense
were conversing and that Nebrija was also inside the house.

Issue:

Whether or not Collado is guilty of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness.

Held: