18. PILAPIL VS. IBAY-SOMERA
19. PEOPLE VS. RITTER
FACTS: Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with private respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal Republic of Germany. They have a child who was born on April 20, 1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Conjugal disharmony eventuated in private respondent and he initiated a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January 1983. The petitioner then filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the RTC Manila on January 23, 1983.
FACTS: Rape of a 12-yr-old girl allegedly by appellant who inserted a foreign object into her vagina causing her death. A criminal case and a civil case was filed against the defendant
The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, 1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to the petitioner. On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to Imelda, latter ―had an affair with Wil liam Chia as early as 1982 and another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983‖.
ISSUE: Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of adultery even though they are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce was already issued. RULING: The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage, the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else. Though in this case, it appeared that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, and said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so far as he is concerned. Thus, under the same consideration and rationale, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner and has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.
HELD: Moral and exemplary damages are awarded to the victim‗s heirs despite acquittal of accused on grounds of reasonable doubt. Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that the appellant is also free from civil liability which is im pliedly instituted with the criminal action. The doctrine in Urbano v IAC, wherein a person while not criminally liable, may still be civilly liable, is applicable.
