At a glance: Adultery in the Philippines remains a criminal offense under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). It is a private offense that may be prosecuted only upon the complaint of the offended spouse (Art. 344). The offense punishes (1) a married woman who engages in sexual intercourse with a man not her husband, and (2) the paramour if he knew she was married. Proceedings are riddled with technical requirements on complaint, pardon/condonation, joinder of parties, venue, and prescription—each one can make or break a case.

Scope note: This article synthesizes black-letter law and long-standing jurisprudential themes up to mid-2024. Always verify current rulings before relying on any single proposition.

I. Governing Law and Basic Elements

Article 333 (Adultery). A married woman commits adultery by having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband. The man (paramour) is liable only if he knew she was married.

Elements (checklist):

The woman was validly married at the time of the act.
There was carnal knowledge (sexual intercourse) with a man not her husband.
For the male co-accused: knowledge of the woman’s marriage.

Penalty: Prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods (imprisonment), plus accessory penalties under the RPC. Courts may also consider probation, community service, or other alternatives depending on circumstances.

Contrasted with Concubinage (Art. 334):

Who may be the principal offender? Adultery targets the married woman; concubinage targets the husband.
Standard of proof for the act: Adultery requires sexual intercourse; concubinage criminalizes narrower patterns (e.g., keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, cohabiting elsewhere, scandalous conduct), historically making concubinage harder to prove but also criticized for gender asymmetry.

II. “Private Offense” Architecture (Art. 344) — Complaint, Pardon, and Joinder

1) Who may initiate? Only the offended spouse can file the criminal complaint. The public prosecutor (or court) cannot take cognizance without it.

2) Pardon/Condonation (Timing matters):

Prior pardon (express or implied) bars prosecution.
Subsequent pardon (after filing) generally extinguishes the action, subject to timing and voluntariness.
Condonation may be inferred from conduct (e.g., resumption of marital cohabitation with knowledge of the adultery), but courts require clear evidence of voluntary forgiveness.

3) Joinder requirement: If both offenders are alive and known, the complaint must include both the spouse and the alleged paramour; selective prosecution is not allowed. Failure to implead the paramour when known (or vice-versa) can be fatal.

4) Non-waivable defects? Defects related to lack of a valid complaint (i.e., absence of the offended spouse’s sworn complaint) are jurisdictional and cannot be cured by silence or later consent.

III. Procedure, Venue, and Prescription

A. Venue: Generally where the sexual act occurred. Where acts took place in multiple locations, venue may be laid in any place where an essential element occurred. (In practice, prosecutors often select the place of rendezvous or cohabitation.)

B. Jurisdiction: Given the penalty (prisión correccional), Regional Trial Courts typically have jurisdiction over adultery.

C. Prescription: Adultery, as a correctional penalty offense, prescribes in ten (10) years under Article 90 RPC. A consistent doctrinal theme is that the prescriptive period runs from the offended spouse’s discovery, not necessarily from the date of the act—though “discovery” must be proven and is often contested. Filing a valid complaint interrupts prescription.

D. Multiple acts; multiple counts: Each act of intercourse constitutes a separate offense. Prosecutors commonly file multiple counts if they can allege distinct acts within the prescriptive period.

IV. Evidence and Litigation Strategy

1) Proof of carnal knowledge: Direct evidence is rare. Courts accept circumstantial evidence that, taken together, points to sexual intercourse (e.g., admissions, text messages, hotel records, eyewitness testimony of intimacy plus opportunity, birth of a child coupled with proof of non-access by the husband). The identity of the paramour must be proven—mere suspicion or reputation is insufficient.

2) Paramour’s knowledge of marriage: For the male accused, the State must show actual knowledge (e.g., admissions, proof he met family, messages acknowledging the marriage, public posts). Constructive notice (e.g., “she wore a ring”) is usually not enough by itself.

3) Common evidentiary pitfalls:

Illegally obtained private communications risk exclusion.
Hearsay (gossip from neighbors) rarely carries the day unless exceptions apply.
Expert testimony (e.g., on paternity) must be properly anchored, with chain-of-custody for DNA if used.

4) Defenses:

Invalid or void marriage at the time of the acts (e.g., prior subsisting marriage of the husband/wife that voids the later union).
No carnal knowledge (relationship limited to communications or meetings).
No knowledge of marriage (for the male).
Pardon/condonation by the offended spouse (express or implied) before the complaint.
Prescription (time-bar).
Defective complaint (wrong complainant, missing party, or lack of sworn complaint).

V. Civil, Family-Law, and Administrative Dimensions

A. Civil liability ex delicto: Damages may be adjudged in the criminal case (moral, exemplary, sometimes actual), especially for reputational harm and mental anguish.

B. Family law cross-currents:

Legal separation: Adultery is a ground. Evidence gathered here often overlaps with the criminal case, but procedural standards differ.
Nullity/annulment: A decree of nullity (void marriage) may undercut the adultery charge if it shows the accused was not a “married woman” at the time—but timing is critical and courts scrutinize retroactive effects carefully.
Presumption of legitimacy of a child conceived in wedlock persists unless properly rebutted; a paternity dispute (e.g., DNA) does not automatically prove adultery’s elements.

C. VAWC interplay (RA 9262): Claims of abuse or coercive control sometimes surface alongside adultery allegations. Evidence marshaled in one case can affect the other; however, elements and defenses are distinct.

D. Professional/administrative exposure: Public officers or professionals (e.g., lawyers, teachers) may face separate administrative discipline when the affair implicates codes of conduct (scandal, moral turpitude findings), independent of criminal liability.

VI. Charging and Plea Negotiations

Multiplicity of counts often anchors plea talks. Narrowing to a single count in exchange for a plea to a lesser penalty, probation, or community service is a common path when evidence is mixed.
Civil compromise cannot, by itself, extinguish criminal action for adultery, but a valid subsequent pardon from the offended spouse may—if it meets the requirements.

VII. Compliance Traps (Practical Checklists)

For complainants (offended spouse):

✅ Prepare a sworn complaint expressly naming both the spouse and paramour (if alive/known).
✅ File within ten (10) years of discovery; detail when and how discovery occurred.
✅ Avoid any acts that could be read as pardon/condonation before filing (e.g., resuming cohabitation).
✅ Secure admissible evidence (records, messages, witnesses) without violating privacy laws.

For accused (spouse/paramour):

✅ Audit the validity of the complaint (proper party, oath, joinder).
✅ Probe pardon/condonation and prescription.
✅ Challenge the proof of carnal knowledge and, for the paramour, actual knowledge of marriage.
✅ Consider diversionary outcomes (probation/community service) where available.

VIII. Notable Themes From Supreme Court Jurisprudence

(Summarized doctrinal threads that recur in rulings; formulations vary by case and fact pattern.)

Discovery triggers prescription in private offenses like adultery; the State must still plead/prove timeliness when raised.
Joinder is mandatory: if both offenders are alive/known, a complaint that targets only one is defective.
Subsequent pardon can extinguish liability, but must be voluntary, informed, and unequivocal.
Each sexual act is a separate offense—but proof must still clear the “carnal knowledge” hurdle for each count.
Circumstantial mosaics are acceptable: courts may convict on a coherent set of circumstances even without a “smoking gun,” provided the chain of inference excludes reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Paramour’s knowledge is an independent element; mere negligence or failure to inquire is not identical to knowledge.
Privacy and digital evidence: Admissibility hinges on lawful acquisition, authenticity, and proper chain-of-custody; otherwise, critical messages/photos can be excluded.

IX. The “Pulido” Case — What Practitioners Usually Mean

Several Supreme Court decisions across decades bear the title Pulido in various contexts, and lawyers sometimes refer to a “Pulido case” as shorthand in adultery/concubinage discussions. In practice, references to “Pulido” typically revolve around two recurring adultery doctrines:

Strict compliance with the private-offense complaint rule (only the offended spouse may initiate; proper joinder of parties; pardon effects); and
Prescription tied to discovery (how, when, and by whom adultery was discovered, and what evidence proves that timeline).

Because “Pulido” can point to different cases depending on the speaker and context, always confirm the exact citation and syllabus before relying on it in pleadings.

X. Policy Debates and Reform Currents

Gender asymmetry & modernization: Adultery/concubinage provisions are frequently criticized as sex-differentiated and out of step with constitutional equality norms.
Decriminalization proposals: Periodic bills seek to decriminalize consensual adult sexual conduct or to equalize treatment of spouses. None has yet displaced the core of Article 333 as of mid-2024.
Restorative approaches: Family courts and prosecutors increasingly explore non-carceral resolutions where feasible (e.g., counseling, community-based penalties), mindful of collateral harm to children.

XI. Practical Templates (for orientation only — adapt to facts)

A. Allegation paragraph (Information):

“On or about [date(s)] at [place], the accused [Name], a married woman to [Husband], did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with [Paramour], who knew she was married, contrary to Article 333.”

B. Core defenses (Motion to Quash/Acquittal):

Lack of a valid private complaint by offended spouse;
Non-joinder of the known paramour/spouse;
Prescription (more than 10 years from discovery);
Pardon/condonation prior to filing;
Failure to prove carnal knowledge or paramour’s knowledge.

XII. Quick FAQ

Is a single act enough? Yes. One proven act of intercourse suffices for one count of adultery.

Can the husband’s later consent cure an earlier filing defect? No. Jurisdiction depends on a valid complaint at the outset.

If the marriage is later declared void, does it erase adultery liability? Not automatically. Courts examine the parties’ marital status at the time of the acts and the timing/effect of the nullity decree.

Can text messages and hotel receipts convict? They can—if lawfully obtained, authenticated, and woven into a coherent circumstantial chain proving intercourse (and knowledge, for the paramour).

What if the offended spouse reconciles after filing? A clear, voluntary subsequent pardon can extinguish criminal liability, but it must be unequivocal. Courts scrutinize alleged condonation carefully.

XIII. Takeaways for Counsel

Treat Art. 344’s private-offense architecture as jurisdictional terrain—map it first.
Build (or attack) a timeline of discovery for prescription.
For the paramour, contest knowledge aggressively; for the spouse, contest carnal knowledge with equal vigor.
Preserve objections on admissibility (privacy, chain-of-custody) early.
Where appropriate, explore probation/community service and civil settlements alongside careful pardon mechanics.

Closing Note

Adultery cases succeed or fail on technical compliance (complaint, joinder, pardon, prescription) and on evidentiary discipline. Before filing or answering, align facts to these pressure points—and, for any reference to the “Pulido” case, pin down the exact citation and holding that matches your issue (complaint validity, prescription, or condonation).