ARROYO, JR. VS. COURT OF APPEALSG.R. 96602

Parties to the CasePetitioners: Eduardo Arroyo, Jr., Ruby Vera-NeriRespondents: CA and PP

Nature of the CasePetition for review of the decision of CA convicting herein petitioners-accused of the crime of ADULTERY

Facts of the Case

• Dr. Jorge B. Neri filed a complaint for adultery against his wife Ruby Vera Neri and Eduardo Arroyo committed on November 2, 1982

So what happened on November 2, 1982?

According to the testimony of Jabunan:

11 a.m. Mrs. Neri, Linda Sare and Jabunan arrived at Baguio. Thereafter, they went to the place of Mrs. Vera, mother of Ruby Vera Neri. Then, they proceeded to the Mines View Park Condominium owned by Spouses Neri.

7 p.m. Eduardo Arroyo arrived at the Neri’s Condominium. Jabunan was the one who opened the door for Arroyo. Thereafter, Arroyo went down and knocked at the master’s bedroom where Ruby Neri and Linda Sare were staying. Upon request of Ruby Neri, Linda Sare left the master’s bedroom and went upstairs to the sala (NASA TAAS ANG SALA! )

7:45 p.m. Arroyo came up to the sala and told Linda Sare could already come down. Three of them, thereafter, went to the sala and left the condominium.

According to the testimony of Dr. Neri :On December 1982, he surprised his wife

while she was looking for some photographs in their bedroom at Dasma Village, Makati. Accused Ruby Neri then turned pale. Struck by this unusual behavior, Dr. Neri started looking around the dressing room and he came upon a Kodak envelope with film negatives inside. He took the negatives and have it developed few days later. Armed with the photographs which showed his wife in intimate bedroom poses with another man, he confronted Ruby Neri who admitted to him that Eduardo Arroyo was her lover and they went to bed in Baguio on November 2 and 3, 1982.

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 wife’s 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

Issues raised before the SC:1.W/N Dr. Neri’s affidavit of desistance is sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on his credibility;2.W/N Mrs. Neri’s constitutional right against self incrimination had been violated;3.W/N Dr.Neri’s alleged extra-marital affair precludes him from filing the criminal complaint on the ground of pari delicto;4.W/N the Dr. Neri’s manifestation is sufficient basis for the granting of new trial or dismissal of the case;5.W/N Dr. Neri’s affidavit of desistance and compromise agreement operate as a pardon meriting a new trial.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT

On the First Issue:W/N Dr. Neri’s 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. Neri’s 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. Neri’s 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

self-incrimination.

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.Neri’s alleged extra-marital affair precludes him from filing the criminal complaint

on the ground of pari delicto

Ruling:No.

A person cannot invoke pari delicto in a criminal case.

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. Neri’s 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

wife’s infidelity, xxx,”

Ratio:

Dr. Neri’s 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. Neri’s recantation because he had two occasions to make the claim but he failed to do so.

On the Fifth Issue:W/N Dr. Neri’s 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.