FACTS:

Dr. Jorge B. Neri filed a criminal complaint for adultery against his wife, Ruby Vera Neri, and Eduardo Arroyo. The trial court convicted both defendants of adultery. The essential facts of the case are as follows: Ruby Vera Neri and witness Jabunan took a morning flight to Baguio. They dropped by Ruby's mother's house and then proceeded to the condominium of the Neri spouses. Later in the evening, Eduardo Arroyo arrived at the condominium and went to the master's bedroom where Ruby Vera Neri and Linda Sare were. Linda Sare was asked to leave the room, and after some time, Eduardo Arroyo informed Linda Sare that she could come down. The three of them then left the condominium. Petitioner Arroyo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, while petitioner Ruby Vera Neri moved for reconsideration or a new trial, claiming that her husband had extended a pardon and had contracted marriage with another woman. Both motions were denied by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner Ruby Vera Neri filed a separate Petition for Review, while petitioner Arroyo filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for consolidation of the cases. On 3 June 1991, the cases were consolidated and assigned to the ponente for the writing of the Court's Resolution. Dr. Neri filed a manifestation praying for the dismissal of the case as he had "tacitly consented" to his wife's infidelity. Petitioners filed motions for dismissal or new trial, citing Dr. Neri's manifestation. The Solicitor-General also filed a comment on the manifestation. The issues raised in the consolidated cases include the credibility of Dr. Neri, the alleged violation of Mrs. Neri's right against self-incrimination, whether Dr. Neri's alleged affair precludes him from filing the complaint, and whether Dr. Neri's manifestation is sufficient for a new trial. Petitioner Arroyo's Motion for Reconsideration was denied, and petitioner Ruby Vera Neri failed to show reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the admission of Mrs. Neri should have been rejected due to the absence of counsel during the investigation.

2. Whether the testimony of Dr. Neri can be considered as a basis for conviction.

3. Whether the defense of pari delicto can be raised in a prosecution for adultery and concubinage.

4. Whether Dr. Neri's manifestation should result in the dismissal of the case or a new trial.

5. Whether Dr. Neri's belated recantation is true and reliable.

6. Whether Dr. Neri's affidavit of desistance and compromise agreement operate as a pardon.

7. Whether consent or pardon must be given prior to the filing of a criminal complaint.

8. Whether the affidavit of desistance and compromise agreement were executed before the trial court's guilty verdict.

9. Whether the control of the adultery case passes to the public prosecutor once the complaint has been filed.

10. Whether or not the accused should be deemed mentally and physically incapable of committing the crime charged due to his alleged mental illness and physical disability.

11. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused based on the evidence presented.

RULING:

1. The admission of Mrs. Neri should not have been rejected as the right to counsel only attaches upon the start of an investigation conducted by a peace officer or investigating officer, which did not apply to Dr. Neri.

2. The testimony of Dr. Neri can be considered as a basis for conviction as the declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging guilt may be given in evidence against him. Compliance with constitutional procedures on custodial investigation is not applicable to a spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning.

3. The defense of pari delicto is not a valid defense to a prosecution for adultery and concubinage. The concept of pari delicto is found in the Civil Code's Article 1411 relating to contracts with illegal consideration and does not apply to criminal proceedings.

4. Dr. Neri's manifestation, which amounts to an attempted recantation, does not automatically result in the dismissal of the case or a new trial. Whether a new trial shall be granted depends on all the circumstances of the case and the reliability of the recanting testimony.

5. The court doubts the truthfulness and reliability of Dr. Neri's belated recantation.

6. The court held that the affidavit of desistance and compromise agreement do not operate as a pardon.

7. Both consent and pardon must be given prior to the filing of a criminal complaint.

8. The affidavit of desistance and compromise agreement were executed after the trial court's guilty verdict.

9. The control of the adultery case passes to the public prosecutor once the complaint has been filed.

10. The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration and the Petition for Review for lack of merit. The Court upheld the conviction of the accused and ordered the denial to be final. Costs were also imposed against the petitioners.

PRINCIPLES:

• Right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation conducted by a peace officer or investigating officer.

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

• Compliance with constitutional procedures on custodial investigation is not applicable to spontaneous statements not elicited through questioning.

• The defense of pari delicto does not apply to criminal proceedings for adultery and concubinage.

• Recantations by witnesses do not necessarily result in the granting of a new trial. The reliability of the recanting testimony and the circumstances of the case are considered.

• A recanting testimony is considered unreliable and a new trial should not be granted unless satisfied of its truthfulness.

• Consent or pardon must be given prior to the filing of a criminal complaint in order to benefit the accused.

• The control of an adultery case passes to the public prosecutor once the complaint has been filed.

• The enforcement of laws on adultery is important for the preservation and protection of marriage and the family as fundamental social institutions.

• A person may still be capable of committing a crime despite having a mental illness or physical disability.

• The Court gives deference to the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, especially when it affirms the conviction based on evidence presented.