PEOPLE VS.

SENSANO AND RAMOS

58 PHIL 73
FACTS:
Ursula Sensano and Mariano Ventura were married and had a child whom the latter allegedly
abandoned when he went and stayed in Cagayan for three years without letters or financial support
to the former who worked hard for herself and her son until she met the accused Marcelo Ramos
who later took care of them.
Ventura charged Sensano and Ramos for adultery, found by the court guilty of the crime charged
and served their sentence.
Sensano after serving her sentenced and leaving her paramour made steps to reconcile with and go
back to her husband but to no avail - She and her child were abandoned for the second time. Thus,
they went back to her co-accused Ramos.
Despite the knowledge that she resumed living with her codefendant, her husband did nothing to
assert his right as her spouse. Instead, he went abroad for seven years and presumably had
completely abandoned them..
When Ventura returned home, he charged Sensano of adultery for the second time in order to obtain
divorce under Act No. 2710.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ramos can file adultery against his spouse for the second time being the offended
party.
HELD:
No. The Court concluded that the evidence in this case as well as the conduct of Ramos showed
that he consented to the adulterous relations existing between the accused and former codefendant. He is therefore under the law not authorized to institute the criminal proceeding.
Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraphs 1 and 2, are as follows:
Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness. The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except
upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty
parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the
offenders.
The court, in reversing the decision of the court aquo found the argument of the Solicitor General
that his seven years of acquiescence in the adultery of his wife is due to his absence in the country
which made him impossible to take any action against the accused, to be unmeritorious.