Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    G.R. No. 96602 November 19, 1991 Neri V People G.R. No. 96715 November 19, 1991

    Uploaded by

    Mi Lagro
    This document summarizes two Supreme Court cases - Arroyo Jr v CA and Neri v People. It discusses whether an affidavit of desistance from the complainant spouse can dismiss an adultery case and whether the doctrine of in pari delicto can bar prosecution. The court held that: 1) An affidavit of desistance after case filing cannot dismiss the case, and 2) In pari delicto is not a bar to prosecution unless it amounts to consent before case filing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 96602 November 19, 1991 Neri V People G.R. No. 96715 November 19, 1991

    Uploaded by

    Mi Lagro
    30 views1 page
    This document summarizes two Supreme Court cases - Arroyo Jr v CA and Neri v People. It discusses whether an affidavit of desistance from the complainant spouse can dismiss an adultery case and whether the doctrine of in pari delicto can bar prosecution. The court held that: 1) An affidavit of desistance after case filing cannot dismiss the case, and 2) In pari delicto is not a bar to prosecution unless it amounts to consent before case filing.

    Original Description:

    Arroy jr

    Original Title

    ARROYO-JR-V-CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes two Supreme Court cases - Arroyo Jr v CA and Neri v People. It discusses whether an affidavit of desistance from the complainant spouse can dismiss an adultery case and whether the doctrine of in pari delicto can bar prosecution. The court held that: 1) An affidavit of desistance after case filing cannot dismiss the case, and 2) In pari delicto is not a bar to prosecution unless it amounts to consent before case filing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views1 page

    G.R. No. 96602 November 19, 1991 Neri V People G.R. No. 96715 November 19, 1991

    Uploaded by

    Mi Lagro
    This document summarizes two Supreme Court cases - Arroyo Jr v CA and Neri v People. It discusses whether an affidavit of desistance from the complainant spouse can dismiss an adultery case and whether the doctrine of in pari delicto can bar prosecution. The court held that: 1) An affidavit of desistance after case filing cannot dismiss the case, and 2) In pari delicto is not a bar to prosecution unless it amounts to consent before case filing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ARROYO JR V CA

    G.R. No. 96602 November 19, 1991

    NERI V PEOPLE
    G.R. No. 96715 November 19, 1991

    FACTS:

    Arroyo Jr. and Mrs. Neri were herein convicted by RTC for adultery. While the original
    complaint was filed by Dr. Neri, Mrs. Neri’s husband, Dr. Neri later on executed an affidavit of
    desistance with the adultery case.

    While Mrs. Neri contends that Dr. Neri was actually living with another woman.

    ISSUE:

    (1) WON adultery herein should be dismissed by an affidavit of desistance by the


    complainant?
    (2) WON in pari delicto a bar to prosecute adultery / bigamy?

    HELD:
    (1)No.

    ART. 344. ... — The crime 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 parties, if they
    are both alive, nor in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.

    While affidavit of desistance herein is to be given effect as a pardon, it cannot still be a ground
    to dismiss the case. While there is a conceptual difference between consent and pardon
    in the sense that consent is granted prior to the adulterous act while pardon is given
    after the illicit affair, 21 nevertheless, for either consent or pardon to benefit the
    accused, it must be given prior to the filing of a criminal complaint.

    It should also be noted that while Article 344 of the Revise Penal Code provides that the
    crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted without the offended spouse's complaint, once
    the complaint has been filed, the control of the case passes to the public prosecutor.

    (2) In pari delicto is not a bar to prosecute adultery / concubinage. Except with it amounts to
    consent as refered to in second paragraph of Art 344. However, both consent and pardon could
    only be used as a defense it it be given before the filing of a proper case.

    You might also like