Arroyo, Jr. vs. CA
Arroyo, Jr. vs. CA
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. 96602
7 p.m.
7:45 p.m.
Course of Proceedings:
Both accused pleaded not guilty and after trial the RTC convicted them of adultery as defined under Art. 333 of RPC The CA affirmed the conviction Both accused filed MR before the CA (separate cases) Both accused filed a Petition for Review before the SC (separate petitions) which were both denied by SC Both accused filed for MR before the SC (at this point the two cases were consolidated) The case was assigned to the Third Division of the SC On July 29, 1991- The Third Division deliberated upon the case On August 26, 1991 Dr. Neri (husband) filed a Manifestation dated May 14, 1991 praying that the case be dismissed as he had tacitly consented to his wifes infidelity The case was re-deliberated by the First Division upon the assignment of the ponente to that division, nonetheless, they reached the same conclusion as of the members of the Third Division of SC
On the First Issue: W/N Dr. Neris affidavit of desistance is sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on his credibility
Ruling: NO. The affidavit of desistance submitted by Dr. Neri is INSUFFICIENT to cast reasonable doubt on his credibility
Ratio: In proceedings under rule 45, the findings of fact of the lower court as well as its conclusions on credibility of witnesses are generally not disturbed, the question before the court being limited to questions of law. Specifically, the conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are given considerable weight, since said court is in the best position to observe the demeanor, conduct and attitude of witnesses at the trial.
Thus, the claim the Dr. Neris testimony is incredible is unavailing at this stage. Besides, the court does not believe that such an admission of an unfaithful wife was inherently improbable and impossible
On the Second Issue: W/N Mrs. Neris constitutional right against self incrimination had been violated
Ruling: No. There had been NO violation of the constitutional right of Mrs. Neri, specifically her right against selfincrimination.
Ratio: 1. Dr. Neri was a competent witness. The rule is that any person, otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it. 2. Ruby Neri cannot invoke her right to remain silent neither her right to counsel because Dr. Neri was not a peace officer nor an investigating officer conducting a custodial investigation
On theThird Issue: W/N Dr.Neris alleged extra-marital affair precludes him from filing the criminal complaint on the ground of pari delicto
Ratio: The concept of pari delicto is not found in RPC, but only in Art. 1411 of the NCC and it relates only to contracts with illegal consideration. This case did not involve any illegal contract which the parties seek to enforce. So, also, in this case, no consent or acquiescence by Dr. Neri can be implied because they did not enter into an agreement that each other may cohabit with other persons. Moreso, Dr. Neri immediately filed a complaint after discovering the illicit affair.
On the Fourth Issue: W/N the Dr. Neris manifestation is sufficient basis for the granting of new trial or dismissal of the case
Ruling: No. The Manifestation can neither cause the dismissal of the case nor grant for new trial.
Even before I filed the complaint in court and before the pardon that I had extended to my wife and her co-accused, I was in reality aware of what was going on between them and therefore, tacitly consented to my wifes infidelity, xxx,
Ratio: Dr. Neris manifestation amounts in effect to an attempted recantation of testimony given by him before the trial court. It is settled that not all recantation by witnesses should result in granting of new trial. Recanting testimony is exceedingly unreliable and it is the duty of the court to deny a new trial where it is not satisfied that such testimony is true.
In this case, the court doubts the truthfulness and reliability of Dr. Neris recantation because he had two occasions to make the claim but he failed to do so.
On the Fifth Issue: W/N Dr. Neris affidavit of desistance and compromise agreement operate as a pardon meriting a new trial.
Ruling: No. The affidavit of desistance was executed only on November 23, 1988 while the compromise agreement was executed only on February 16, 1989, AFTER THE TRIAL COURT HAS RENDERED ITS DECISION on December 17, 1987.
Ratio: The rule on pardon is found in Art. 344 of the RPC: Art. 344. xxx.- The crime of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon the 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. It is a rule that for either consent or pardon to benefit the accused, it must be given prior to the filing of the criminal complaint.
Dispositive Portion:
Petition for review was DENIED for lack of merit.
Ordered the copy of Manifestation be forwarded to Department of Justice for inquiry into the possible liability of Dr. Neri for perjury.