Dear RPC,

A person who is married may not maintain extra-marital relations with

other persons. He or she must remain faithful and loyal as it is a part
of the obligations set under the law, particularly Article 68 of the
Family Code of the Philippines which states that: “The husband and
wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, and render mutual help and support.” A person who violates
the abovementioned provision may be held legally responsible. For
married men, they may be held criminally liable for concubinage,
while for married women, they may be held criminally liable for
adultery. Adultery is one of the crimes punishable under the Revised
Penal Code of the Philippines. Pursuant to Article 333 thereof:
“Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual
intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has
carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the
marriage be subsequently declared void. x x x” aking these into
consideration, we submit that you may only file a complaint against
your wife for adultery if you can clearly establish all the elements
thereof, to wit: (1) She is married; (2) She has sexual intercourse with
a man who is not her husband; and (3) Said man has knowledge of her
to be married.

It does not necessarily mean that you need to possess direct evidence
of their sexual relationship. It is only necessary that the documents
that you have, as well as all your other corroborating evidence, will
establish the crime committed by them without reasonable doubt. As
ruled by the High Court: “Proof of the commission of the crime of
adultery, like proof of the commission of most other crimes, may
safely be rested on circumstantial evidence when that evidence is such
that it leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused,
and, indeed, contrary to the contention of counsel for appellants,
convictions for this crime have frequently been had without direct
evidence as to the specific acts constituting the offense, as will appear
from the following citations from decisions of the Tribunal Supremo
de España: The finding in the possession of a married woman of
several love letters signed by her paramour; their having been seen
together in different places, and finally, the fact that they were
surprised in a well-known assignation house which the accused
woman admitted having visited six times in company with the former,
are data and indications sufficient to convict them both of the crime of
adultery; because, as the supreme court of Spain says, “it shows
without doubt not only their illicit relations but also such acts as
constitute adultery and are the consequence of said relations.”
(Decision of the 23d of June, 1874.) x x x”(The United States vs.
Legaspi, G.R. L-No. 5110, August 19, 1909).

 Circumstantial evidence may be used such as testimonies from witnesses who saw them wearing sleeping
apparel and sleeping together, photographs showing intimate body language between the two and the like.

Direct evidence is not necessary as adultery may be implied from the circumstances of time,
place and occasion
The man may be acquitted if he did not know the woman is married

G.R. L-No. 5110            August 19, 1909

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
FABIANA LEGASPI and PAULINO PULONGBARET, defendants-appellants.

 the admissions of his accused would in themselves appear to be sufficient to established the
commission of the crime; for the unexplained fact that a man is found at a late hour of the night,
alone in a room with another man's wife, she being in bed, and absent from her husband's home
without his consent, and as far as she knew without his knowledge, would seem to be sufficient to
sustain a conviction of the crime of adultery. Proof of the commission of the crime of adultery, like
proof of he commission of most other crimes, may safely be rested on circumstantial evidence when
that evidence is such that it leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, and,
indeed, contrary to the contention of counsel for appellants, convictions for this crime have
frequently been had without direct evidence as to the specific acts constituting the offense, 

Tribunal Supremo de España:

it shows without doubt not only thier illicit relations but also such acts as constitute adultery and are
the consequence of said relations." (Decision of the 23d of June, 1874.)
G.R. No. 96602 November 19, 1991

EDUARDO ARROYO, JR., petitioner, 

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

G.R. No. 96715 November 19, 1991

RUBY VERA-NERI, petitioner, 
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.

In the case of  Aballe v. People (183 SCRA 196 [1990]), the Court held:

The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him.

The rule is that any person, otherwise competent as witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to substance of what he heard if he heard and
understood all of it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such case it must be given in its substance.

It should also be noted that while Article 344 of the Revise Penal Code provides that the crime of
adultery cannot be prosecuted without the offended spouse's complaint, once the complaint has
been filed, the control of the case passes to the public prosecutor.   Enforcement of our law on 23

adultery is not exclusively, nor even principally, a matter of vindication of the private honor of the
offended spouse; much less is it a matter merely of personal or social hypocrisy. Such enforcement
relates, more importantly, to protection of the basic social institutions of marriage and the family in
the preservation of which the State has the strongest interest; the public policy here involved is of
the most fundamental kind. In Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution there is set forth the following
basic state policy:

The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect find strengthen the family as
a basic autonomous social institution ...

The same sentiment has been expressed in the Family Code o the Philippines in Article 149:

The family, being the foundation of the ration, is a basic social institution which public policy
cherishes and protects. Consequently, family relations are governed by law and no custom,
practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given effect.

In U.S. v. Topiño,   the Court held that:

24

... The husband being the head of the family and the only person who could institute the
prosecution and control its effects, it is quite clear that the principal object in penalizing the
offense by the state was to protect the purity of the family and the honor of the husband, but
now the conduct of the prosecution, after it is once commenced by the husband, and the
enforcement of the penalties imposed is also a matter of public policy in which the
Government is vitally interested to the extent of preserving the public peace and providing for
the general welfare of the community. ...
 G.R. No. 224804, September 21, 2016

EFREN R. LEYNES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

In any case, as correctly held by the lower court, Efren is estopped from claiming that he did not convert the
mangrove forest area. In his Letter of Appeal, Efren admitted that "he caused the cutting of number of trees
inside the old fishpond", which is deemed as a judicial admission. A judicial admission, verbal or written, is
8
made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case which does not require proof.  To
contradict one's own admission, the person who made the same must show that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party
making the admissions. In the case at bar, no denial was made on the part of Efren that he cut a number of
9 10
trees in the mangrove forest.  As elucidated by this Court in Alfelor v. Halasan:

A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge [the] fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of
proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the
field of controversy. Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party
making such admission and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent
therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not. The allegations,
statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot
subsequently take a position contrary of or inconsistent with what was pleaded.11 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Thus, Efren's judicial admission, in addition to the aforementioned grounds, is a sufficient ground to sustain
a conviction.

Worth stressing, in this connection, judicial admissions do not require proof and may not be
contradicted in the absence of a prior showing that the admissions had been made through palpable
mistake.21 --- G.R. No. 159240             February 4, 2008

GREGORIO SILOT, JR., petitioner, 

vs.
ESTRELLA DE LA ROSA, respondent.

Opportunity and inclination to commit adultery

[G.R. No. 131636. March 5, 2003]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ARTEMIO

INVENCION y SORIANO, appellant.
The alleged ulterior motive of Elven in testifying against his father also deserves scant
consideration. Such insinuation of ill-motive is too lame and flimsy. As observed by the OSG,
Elven, who was of tender age, could not have subjected himself to the ordeal of a public trial
had he not been compelled by a motive other than to bring to justice the despoiler of his sisters
virtue. There is no indication that Elven testified because of anger or any ill-motive against his
father, nor is there any showing that he was unduly pressured or influenced by his mother or by
anyone to testify against his father. The rule is that where there is no evidence that the principal
witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was
not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full credence.
The alleged ill-motives on the part of Gloria and Celestino were not sufficiently proved. Nothing
in the records suggests any reason that would motivate Gloria to testify falsely against Artemio,
who is the father of her other children. Moreover, we have repeatedly held that no mother would
subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace, and trauma attendant to the prosecution for rape if
she were not motivated solely by the desire to have the person responsible for her childs
defilement incarcerated.[28] As for Celestino, he testified that the lot where the hut stands is
owned by his daughter Erlinda, and not by Artemios mother.[29] At any rate, even without
Celestinos testimony, Artemios conviction would stand.

Fear, duress, and threat

G.R. No. 207176               June 18, 2014

SPOUSES VICTOR and EUNA BINUA, Petitioners, 

vs.
LUCIA P. ONG, Respondent.

Article 1335 of the Civil Code, meanwhile, states that "[t]here is intimidation when one of the
contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave
evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or
ascendants, to give his consent." The same article, however, further states that "[a] threat to enforce
one’s claim through competent authority, if the claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent."

In De Leon v. Court of Appeals,  the Court held that in order that intimidation may vitiate consent
26

and render the contract invalid, the following requisites must concur: (1) that the intimidation must be
the determining cause of the contract, or must have caused the consent to be given; (2) that the
threatened act be unjust or unlawful; (3) that the threat be real and serious, there being an evident
disproportion between the evil and the resistance which all men can offer, leading to the choice of
the contract as the lesser evil; and (4) that it produces a reasonable and well-grounded fear from the
fact that the person from whom it comes has the necessary means or ability to inflict the threatened
injury.
27

In cases involving mortgages, a preponderance of the evidence is essential to establish its invalidity,
and in order to show fraud, duress, or undue influence of a mortgage, clear and convincing proof is
necessary. 28
in order to show fraud, duress, or undue influence of a mortgage, clear and convincing proof is
necessary.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGEL

PRECIADOS (At Large), ARTURO ENAD, EMIGDIO VILLAMOR,
LEONCIO ALGABRE and FLORIANO ALGABRE @
LOLOY, accused.
ARTURO ENAD, accused-appellant.

The findings of the court relative to the credibility of the witnesses militate in favor
of the prosecution witnesses (citations omitted). The court took into
considerationthe most important factor(s) (of) each witness, his manner and
behavior on the witness stand and the general characteristics, tone, tenor and
inherent probability of his statement (citations omitted) for in most instancesthe
demeanor of a witness on the witness stand is often a better evidence of his veracity
than the answer he gives (citations omitted) andit is perfectly reasonable to believe
the testimony of a witness with respect to other parts. Everytime when witnesses
are found to have deliberately falsified some material particulars it is not required
that the whole of their uncorroborated testimony be rejected but some portions
thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited.