I. Overview: Why “Count Calculation” Matters

In Philippine criminal practice, “count calculation” refers to how many criminal cases (or counts) may be filed based on multiple acts of adultery—especially when there are multiple affairs, multiple sexual encounters, or multiple partners. This is not merely arithmetic; it depends on:

The elements of adultery under the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
The rule on continuing crimes vs. separate offenses
The rule on duplicitous charging (one Information should generally charge only one offense)
Evidence of specific acts (dates/places/partners)
The special procedural rules unique to adultery (e.g., who can file, requirements involving both offenders, and bars/limitations)

This article explains the governing law, how counts are commonly computed, and the practical constraints that usually determine how many cases can realistically be filed.

II. The Crime of Adultery (Philippine Context)

A. Governing provision

Adultery is a crime under the Revised Penal Code, committed by:

A married woman who has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband; and
The man who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing she is married.

B. Essential elements

To establish adultery, the prosecution must prove:

The woman is married and the marriage is valid and subsisting at the time of the act;
She had sexual intercourse (carnal knowledge) with a man not her husband;
The accused man had sexual intercourse with her; and
The man knew she was married.

Sexual intercourse is the gravamen. Emotional affairs, flirting, cohabitation without proof of intercourse, or suggestive messages alone do not automatically establish adultery (though they may be evidence pointing toward intercourse, depending on circumstances).

C. Who may file; distinctive procedural limitations

Adultery is a private crime in Philippine practice. Key consequences:

Only the offended husband (typically) can initiate the criminal complaint.
As a general rule, the complaint must be filed against both offenders—the wife and the paramour—if both are alive and identifiable; selective prosecution is typically barred unless a recognized legal reason prevents inclusion.
There are well-known bars grounded in marital/consent principles (e.g., certain acts that amount to consent/condonation can defeat prosecution). These are heavily fact-specific.

These procedural features often shape count calculation because a husband must consider who the partner(s) are and whether they can be sufficiently identified and charged.

III. Core Counting Rule: Each Act of Sexual Intercourse Is a Separate Adultery Offense

A. General doctrinal approach

In Philippine criminal law, adultery is generally treated such that each act of sexual intercourse constitutes a distinct offense. This means:

Multiple sexual encounters on different occasions can support multiple Informations (multiple counts).
The law does not ordinarily treat repeated intercourse over time as one “continuing crime” in the same way some other offenses may be treated.

B. Practical effect

One affair with repeated intercourse can produce multiple counts—but only if the prosecution can particularize and prove distinct acts (often by date or approximate date, place, and circumstances).
Multiple affairs with different partners can produce multiple sets of counts, often grouped by partner and by identifiable occasions.

IV. Multiplicity and Duplicity: Why “One Affair” Often Becomes “One Case” in Practice

Even though the theoretical rule is “each act is a separate offense,” actual charging is constrained by:

A. The rule against duplicity in an Information

As a rule of criminal procedure, one Information should charge only one offense (unless a recognized exception applies). Thus, if you want to prosecute multiple acts, the prosecution may need to file multiple Informations—one per act—unless the Information is crafted to allege a single specific offense and other acts are used only as background/evidence (which has limits).

B. Proof realities

Courts require the prosecution to prove the specific offense charged. If an Information alleges a particular date/place, the proof must reasonably correspond (some variance is tolerated, but the act must be identifiable). Many complainants can prove:

The existence of an affair, cohabitation, hotel stays, admissions, pregnancy, etc.

…but cannot reliably prove distinct, countable intercourse events with sufficient specificity. For that reason, in many real cases prosecutors file:

One Information per paramour covering a reasonably identified occurrence (or a narrow time frame supported by evidence), rather than dozens of counts.

C. The “evidentiary ceiling”

Count calculation is therefore a two-step exercise:

Legal maximum: how many counts are theoretically possible (often “as many acts as occurred”).
Provable counts: how many acts can be proven with admissible, credible evidence.

Most disputes are won or lost on step 2.

V. Multiple Affairs: How Counts Are Commonly Computed

Scenario 1: One paramour, multiple proven encounters

If there is evidence of three distinct occasions of sexual intercourse (e.g., admissions referencing separate dates; multiple hotel receipts tied to both; witnesses to overnight stays with corroboration), the theory supports three counts.
If evidence only establishes a general ongoing relationship without distinct act proof, prosecution often proceeds with one count (one Information) anchored to the best-supported incident.

Scenario 2: Multiple paramours, at least one provable act with each

Each paramour is a separate co-offender with the wife.
A typical approach is one case per paramour (at minimum), because each paramour’s adultery is separate and requires proof of his knowledge of her marriage.
If there are multiple provable occasions with Paramour A and Paramour B, then counts multiply accordingly (e.g., 2 counts for A + 1 count for B = 3 Informations).

Scenario 3: Unidentified “John Does” or unknown partners

A key limitation in adultery is the strong procedural expectation that both offenders be charged.
If partners are unknown/unidentifiable, prosecution becomes difficult because you cannot properly implead the paramour(s), and proof of “knowledge of marriage” for an unknown man is inherently problematic.
In practice, unidentified partners often collapse multiple-affair allegations into:
- A case against the wife alone being procedurally vulnerable, or
- No case until the paramour(s) are identified with enough specificity.

Scenario 4: Overlapping timeframes and ongoing cohabitation

Cohabitation can be compelling circumstantial evidence of intercourse, but it rarely proves how many distinct acts occurred. As a result:

Cohabitation usually supports at least one count (if the circumstances strongly point to intercourse).
It does not automatically support dozens of counts without additional particularization.

VI. The “Continuing Crime” Question: Why Adultery Is Usually Not Treated as One Continuous Offense

A continuing crime (delito continuado) is a doctrine applied narrowly. Adultery is generally viewed as not a single continuing offense because each act of intercourse is a separate completed act. Therefore:

Repeated intercourse over weeks/months is typically multiple consummated offenses, not a single continuing one.

That said, prosecutors sometimes choose to file a single best-supported count to avoid proof problems and procedural complications—this is a charging strategy, not a transformation of the legal nature of the acts.

VII. Drafting Counts: What Must Be Alleged Per Count

For each adultery Information, prosecutors typically need to allege facts that identify a particular offense, including:

Identity of the accused wife and paramour
Valid subsisting marriage of the woman at the time
Approximate date (or a narrow date range) and place of the intercourse
That the paramour knew she was married
That they had carnal knowledge (sexual intercourse)

A. Date precision

Exact dates are often hard. The law usually allows some flexibility, but the offense must be identifiable and not so vague that it deprives the accused of the ability to defend.

B. Place/venue issues

Venue lies where the adultery was committed. If multiple acts occurred in multiple cities, counts may need to be filed in different venues depending on where each act occurred, unless rules allow consolidation in a particular procedural posture.

VIII. Evidence for Count Expansion: What Actually Supports Multiple Counts

A. Strong evidence types

Admissions/confessions (written or reliably testified)
Hotel/short-stay records tying both parties to specific dates (with authentication)
Travel records (e.g., flights + shared lodging) plus corroboration
Pregnancy/child (supports intercourse, but not necessarily multiple counts)
Photographs/videos (lawful acquisition and admissibility issues matter)
Witness testimony (e.g., seeing them enter/exit a room overnight, credible circumstances)

B. Weaker evidence for multiple counts

Generic chat messages suggesting intimacy without time anchors
Rumors or hearsay
“They always stay together” without proof of specific occasions
Social media posts without dates/locations or without tying to sexual intercourse

C. The “one best incident” approach

When evidence supports adultery but not count multiplication, prosecutors commonly anchor to:

The clearest incident (e.g., a known hotel stay date), and treat other evidence as supporting context/motive/relationship.

IX. Joinder of Accused and Required Inclusion of Paramours (Multiple Affairs Complication)

A. Why each paramour matters

Each paramour is a co-accused for the adultery act(s) involving him. With multiple paramours:

The wife may be charged in multiple cases with different co-accused men.
The counts involving Paramour A should not be mixed into the same Information with Paramour B because that would effectively charge multiple offenses and involve different co-offenders.

B. Practical case structuring

Common structuring looks like:

Case set A: Wife + Paramour A (one or more counts)
Case set B: Wife + Paramour B (one or more counts)
Case set C: Wife + Paramour C (one or more counts)

Whether prosecutors will accept multiple counts per paramour depends on evidence and policy.

X. Prescription and Timing (Counts Can Expire)

Adultery is subject to prescription (statutory time limits). Each act has its own prescriptive clock starting from commission, subject to rules on interruption by filing and related procedural steps. In multi-year affairs:

Older acts may be time-barred, while newer acts remain prosecutable.
Count calculation must therefore filter acts by date.

XI. Barriers Unique to Adultery: Consent, Condonation, and Related Issues

Adultery prosecution is vulnerable to defenses rooted in the private nature of the offense. In practice, cases can fail if evidence shows the offended spouse:

Consented to or pardoned/condoned the infidelity (often assessed by subsequent conduct), or
Engaged in acts inconsistent with prosecution after knowledge.

These are fact-sensitive and can affect count strategy:

If the offended husband continued marital relations after discovering a specific affair, accused may argue condonation, potentially impacting prosecutability of acts known and effectively forgiven.

XII. Relationship to Concubinage (Common Confusion)

Adultery and concubinage are not symmetrical:

Adultery: married woman + any man (knowledge of marriage for the man).
Concubinage: married man under more limited statutory modes (e.g., keeping mistress in conjugal dwelling, scandalous circumstances, cohabiting elsewhere).

In “multiple affairs” contexts, parties sometimes conflate the two. Count computation rules differ by offense.

XIII. Can You File One Case Covering a Period (“From January to December”)? Risks and Limits

Complainants sometimes want to allege adultery “on various dates” over a period. Risks include:

Vagueness: The accused may argue the Information is too indefinite to defend against.
Duplicity: It may effectively charge multiple offenses in one Information.
Proof mismatch: If you prove only one act, the charging language may still survive, but it creates litigation risk.

Prosecutors often prefer:

A specific date or a narrow time window anchored to evidence.

XIV. Practical Count Calculation Framework (Use This to Organize Your Facts)

Step 1: List paramours

Paramour A (identified?)
Paramour B
Paramour C
Unknowns

Step 2: For each paramour, list provable incidents

For each alleged intercourse event, write:

Date (exact or approximate)
Place (city/venue)
Evidence (hotel record, admission, witness, message thread with time stamps)
Whether the man knew she was married (proof: prior acquaintance, messages acknowledging husband, public status, etc.)

Step 3: Filter by prescription

Remove incidents likely time-barred.

Step 4: Count only what you can particularize

Each incident that can be reasonably identified becomes a candidate for one Information.

Step 5: Confirm procedural viability

Are you able to include both offenders per incident?
Is venue proper?
Are there bars based on condonation/consent issues?

The result is your realistic count number.

XV. Illustrative Examples (How Counts Change)

Example A: Two affairs, weak details

Paramour A: strong evidence of one hotel stay (one date)
Paramour B: only rumors and vague messages Likely counts: 1 Information (A), and B may be unfileable without better evidence.

Example B: One affair, multiple distinct proofs

Paramour A: three separate dated hotel receipts with both names/IDs and corroborating messages Likely counts: up to 3 Informations (one per date), subject to prosecutor discretion and venue.

Example C: Three paramours, one incident each

Paramours A, B, C each have one provable incident Likely counts: 3 separate cases (wife is co-accused in all three).

XVI. Key Takeaways

Legal theory: Each act of sexual intercourse can be a separate adultery offense.
Multiple affairs: At minimum, each identifiable paramour typically means at least one separate prosecutable track, if an act can be proven.
Reality check: Count multiplication is limited by proof (date/place specificity), procedural rules (charging both offenders, duplicity), venue, and prescription.
Strong count expansion requires distinct, independently provable incidents—not merely proof of a relationship.