Introduction

In the Philippines, adultery and concubinage remain criminal offenses under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), reflecting the country's emphasis on preserving marital fidelity and family integrity. Adultery, defined under Article 333 of the RPC, is committed by a married woman who engages in sexual intercourse with a man not her husband, and by the man who knowingly participates in such act. Concubinage, under Article 334, is committed by a married man who keeps a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, engages in sexual intercourse with her under scandalous circumstances, or cohabits with her elsewhere. These crimes are considered private offenses, prosecutable only at the instance of the offended spouse.

A key complexity arises when marital reconciliation occurs after the commission of the offense. Reconciliation—often involving the spouses resuming cohabitation or otherwise restoring their relationship—can significantly impact the ability to file or pursue a criminal case. This article explores the legal framework, implications, procedural requirements, and jurisprudential insights surrounding the filing of such cases post-reconciliation, drawing from statutory provisions, court rulings, and doctrinal principles in Philippine law.

Legal Basis for Adultery and Concubinage

The foundational laws are enshrined in the RPC, enacted in 1930 and amended over time, but with core provisions on crimes against chastity remaining largely intact:

Article 333 (Adultery): Punishable by prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods (2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 6 years). Both the erring wife and her paramour are liable.
Article 334 (Concubinage): Punishable by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months) for the husband, and destierro (banishment) for the concubine. The offense requires proof of cohabitation, scandalous intercourse, or maintenance in the family home.

These are distinct from civil remedies like legal separation or annulment under the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, as amended), where adultery or concubinage can serve as grounds but do not necessarily trigger criminal proceedings.

Importantly, Article 344 of the RPC classifies these as crimes that "shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse." This underscores their private nature: the state intervenes only if the aggrieved party initiates action. The offended spouse must include both guilty parties in the complaint if both are alive, and prosecution is barred if the offended spouse has consented to or pardoned the offenders.

The Concept of Pardon and Its Relation to Reconciliation

Pardon by the offended spouse is a critical bar to prosecution. Under Article 344, pardon extinguishes criminal liability for adultery or concubinage. Philippine jurisprudence distinguishes between express and implied pardon:

Express Pardon: A clear, unequivocal statement or act forgiving the offense, such as a written affidavit of desistance.
Implied Pardon: Inferred from actions indicating forgiveness, with marital reconciliation often serving as a prime example. Resuming marital relations, cohabitation, or other acts of intimacy post-discovery of the offense can imply pardon.

Reconciliation typically implies pardon because it suggests the offended spouse has forgiven the transgression to restore the marriage. However, not all reconciliations automatically equate to pardon; the context matters. For instance:

If reconciliation occurs before the filing of a complaint, it may prevent initiation of the case.
If it happens after filing but before conviction, it could lead to dismissal, as the offended spouse's continued pursuit might contradict the reconciliation.

The RPC does not explicitly define "reconciliation," but courts interpret it as the voluntary resumption of marital life, free from coercion. This aligns with the policy of promoting family harmony, as seen in related provisions under the Family Code (e.g., Article 55, where sexual infidelity is a ground for legal separation, but reconciliation can bar such actions).

Effects of Marital Reconciliation on Filing a Case

Pre-Filing Reconciliation

If the spouses reconcile before any complaint is filed, the offended spouse is generally barred from instituting criminal proceedings. This stems from the presumption that reconciliation implies pardon, extinguishing the right to prosecute. Key points:

Rationale: The law views these crimes as injuries to the marital bond rather than to society at large. Once the bond is mended through reconciliation, the basis for criminal action dissipates.
Exceptions: Rare cases where reconciliation is proven to be insincere or coerced might allow filing, but this requires strong evidence. For example, if the offended spouse reconciles under duress (e.g., threats of violence), the pardon may be invalid.
Time Limits: There is no strict prescription period for filing under the RPC for these crimes (as they are continuing offenses in some interpretations), but the offended spouse must act within a reasonable time. Reconciliation interrupts this.

Post-Filing Reconciliation

If a complaint has already been filed and reconciliation occurs afterward:

Before Arraignment or Trial: The case may be dismissed upon motion by the offended spouse, as reconciliation evidences desistance.
During Trial: Courts may still dismiss if the reconciliation is genuine, but prosecutors might oppose if public interest demands continuation (though rare for private crimes).
After Conviction: Pardon or reconciliation post-conviction does not retroactively erase guilt but can influence sentencing or parole. However, under Article 89 of the RPC, pardon by the offended party in private crimes extinguishes liability only if given before the institution of the action.

Jurisprudence emphasizes that once the criminal action is instituted, it becomes a public offense, but the offended spouse's role remains pivotal. Reconciliation can lead to an affidavit of desistance, which courts often honor to respect family reconciliation.

Requirements for Filing a Case Post-Reconciliation

Despite reconciliation, filing might still be possible under specific circumstances, though highly restricted:

Proof of No Valid Pardon: The offended spouse must demonstrate that reconciliation did not constitute pardon. This could involve showing that cohabitation resumed without full knowledge of the offense or that forgiveness was not intended.
Subsequent Offenses: If new acts of adultery or concubinage occur after reconciliation, a fresh complaint can be filed for those incidents, as each act is a separate offense.
Procedural Steps:
- Complaint Filing: Must be sworn and filed with the prosecutor's office (fiscal) or directly with the Municipal Trial Court/Regional Trial Court, depending on jurisdiction.
- Inclusion of Both Parties: Both the spouse and the third party must be charged.
- Evidence: Requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, such as eyewitness testimony, admissions, or circumstantial evidence (e.g., hotel records, messages). Direct evidence of intercourse is not always necessary if scandal or cohabitation is established.
- No Double Jeopardy: Reconciliation does not trigger double jeopardy, as it prevents rather than acquits.
Role of Children or Third Parties: Only the offended spouse can file; children or relatives cannot, even if the spouse reconciles. This has been criticized for potentially enabling abuse but remains the law.

Jurisprudential Insights

Philippine Supreme Court decisions provide nuanced guidance:

People v. Schneckenburger (1934): Held that marital cohabitation after knowledge of the offense implies pardon, barring prosecution.
People v. Infante (1954): Clarified that pardon must be express for concubinage if not accompanied by acts clearly indicating forgiveness; however, reconciliation often suffices as implied.
Ligtas v. Court of Appeals (1988): Affirmed that post-filing desistance due to reconciliation leads to dismissal, prioritizing family unity.
More Recent Cases: In decisions like those under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act), courts have intersected these with modern laws, noting that psychological violence from infidelity might allow civil remedies despite criminal bars from reconciliation. However, for pure adultery/concubinage, RPC rules prevail.

Doctrinal writers like Justice Luis B. Reyes emphasize that the law's intent is to prevent scandal and preserve marriages, hence the heavy weight given to reconciliation.

Challenges and Criticisms

Gender Bias: Critics argue the laws are unequal—adultery requires mere intercourse for the wife, while concubinage demands more proof for the husband.
Modern Relevance: With no divorce in the Philippines (except for Muslims), reconciliation is encouraged, but this can trap victims in abusive cycles.
Evidentiary Hurdles: Post-reconciliation filings face skepticism, as courts presume good faith in marital restoration.
Intersection with Other Laws: Under the Family Code, reconciliation bars legal separation suits (Article 56), mirroring criminal effects. RA 9262 may offer protection orders for related abuse.

Conclusion

Filing adultery or concubinage cases after marital reconciliation in the Philippines is fraught with legal barriers, primarily due to the extinguishing effect of implied or express pardon. While the law prioritizes family reconciliation, it does so at the potential cost of justice for the offended party. Those considering action should consult legal counsel to assess if exceptions apply, gather robust evidence, and navigate procedural nuances. Ultimately, these provisions reflect a balance between penal sanctions and societal values favoring marital stability, though ongoing debates suggest potential reforms in light of evolving gender and family dynamics.