REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

STA. ROSA CITY, LAGUNA

People of the Philippines,

Criminal Case No. XXXXX
Plaintiffs

For: Adultery (Art. 333,

Revised Penal Code)
-versus-

Mia Alhambra Rota and

Steven Edward Hubbard,
Accused

x-----------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION:

Statement of the Case

Filed before this court is a complaint for adultery by Christopher Patrick
Casserly against his wife Mia Alhambra Rota and her alleged paramour Steven
Edward Hubbard. Rota denied such allegations, and moved to dismiss as the
complainant failed to prove the elements of the crime, and that the court had not
acquired jurisdiction of the case.

Statement of Facts
Casserly, an Irish citizen currently residing in Barcelona, Spain, and Rota,
a Filipino citizen residing in Pasig City, Philippines, were married in Binan Laguna
on 22 March 2010. A few months after their marriage, they moved to Spain with

Rotas son from a previous marriage. On 6 May 2013, their relationship bore a
child, Summer.
In October 2013, as a ruse for money, Rota went to the Philippines with
Summer by reason of the supposed death of her father, for which Casserly gave
her PhP 300,000. Casserly followed his family to the Philippines in December
2013. He left in January 2014, with the agreement that they will move to Ireland
and live there together.
From January to April of 2014 came great turmoil to their relationship,
when at times Rota would say that it is over between the two of them, and at
other times she would change her mind. In her last e-mail to Casserly, she
declared their relationship over, and that she is currently seeing another man. In
January 2015, upon meeting each other, Casserly became aware that Rota is six
months pregnant, borne of an illicit affair with accused Steven Edward Hubbard.
Casserly filed a case for adultery before the Regional Trial Court of Sta.
Rosa City against the two accused. He presented as proof the birth certificate of
the child of the two accused, Joseph Edward Rota Hubbard, which Steven
acknowledged as his. He further contended that the simulation of the birth
certificate of their child Summer to make it appear that the child is Stevens, the
subsequent Admission of Paternity by Steven regarding the same, pictures of the
two accused together in social media, and their unexplained cohabitation
constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of adultery. He attributed
the delay in filing a complaint to the fear that Rota would hide their child away
from him, which she has done in the past. He also denied ever giving consent to
the adulterous acts of the accused.
Rota denied such allegations. She moved to dismiss the case, asserting
that Casserly failed to prove all the elements of the crime in his complaint, and
that his bare suspicion will not suffice as proof. She qualified her pregnancy of
Joseph Hubbard by mention of artificial insemination, and that the pictures on
social media fail to establish anything more than good relations between her
and Hubbard. She alleged that assuming arguendo that they committed adultery,
Casserly does not have a right of action under the doctrine of unclean hands, for
he himself is committing concubinage with a certain Pamela Sherlock; she adds
that Casserly consented to the adulterous acts of the accused by not filing a case
immediately upon cognizance of such illicit affair. She also maintains that the
court has not acquired jurisdiction over the case as the venue of the commission
of the crime has not been proved in the complaint.

Issues
The main issue to be resolved is whether or not Rota is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of adultery under Art 333 of the RPC. The subordinate issues
include: (1) whether or not the elements of adultery were proved; (2) whether or
not the commission of concubinage by Casserly freed Rota from criminal liability
for adultery; (3) whether or not consent was given by Casserly regarding the
adulterous acts of the accused.

Ruling
I.

The elements of the felony charged were proven.

The elements of the crime of adultery, under Article 333 of the Revised

Penal Code, are: (1) that the woman must be married; (2) that carnal relation with
a man not her husband must exist; and (3) that as regards the man with whom
she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to be married 1.
There is no doubt as to the existence of the first element, as supported by
the marriage certificate of Casserly and Rota shown in the formers ComplaintAffidavit2, which was never controverted by the accused. As to the second
element, Casserly contends that Rotas admission in an e-mail dated April 2014
that she is seeing another man who turned out to be Edward Hubbard, her six
month-pregnancy despite the physical impossibility of him having sexual
intercourse with her, and the birth of the child whom they named Joseph Edward
Rota Hubbard, with Edward Hubbard acknowledging the child as his own 3, all
constitute evidence of sexual intercourse between the two accused. Rota denies
the allegations, stating that with the modern advancements of technology, it is not
impossible for her to have conceived the child through artificial insemination.
We find for the complainant. Circumstantial evidence, as what the
complainant has offered, can support conviction if the following requisites concur:
(1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such

1 U.S. v Topino. G.R. No. 11895. 20 December 1916.

2 Annex A. Complaint-Affidavit.
3 Annex C. Complaint-Affidavit.

as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt 4. The above contentions of

the petitioner, along with the facts that the two accused made it appear in
Summers birth certificate that Edward is the childs biological father, even going
so far as to declare the same under oath 5, the two posting numerous pictures of
themselves in social media, and living together under one roof without
explanation, certainly constitutes something much more than good relations, as
Rota avers. Moreover, we can cull from her own admission proof that Joseph
Hubbard is Edwards and Rotas son, thus:
x x x Like the photos that he attached to his complaint affidavit, such posts and
pictures merely show Mr. Hubbard and I enjoying our time with our children. x
x x6

The blatant admission of Rota of the fact that Joseph and Summer are their
(Rotas and Hubbards) children cannot be taken as mere good relations, and
while Rota did a decent job at trying to dismantle Casserlys arguments and
evidence in a piecemeal fashion, it must be stressed that circumstantial
evidence, because of their inferential nature, must not be taken isolated and
detached, but must be appreciated in conjunction 7. Individual pieces of evidence
may not be sufficient to support conviction, but taken together, may be more than
enough to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt 8.
The crime of adultery is private and confidential in nature 9. To present direct
evidence of the fact of adultery is not required, for this renders relief almost
impracticable10. Much more in the instant case, where the aggrieved is not even
residing in the same country as the offender. The general rule as to the
appreciation of indirect evidence in adultery is that the circumstances and
corroborative evidence must be such as would lead the guarded discretion of a

4 Zabala v People, G.R. No. 210760. 26 January 2015.

5 Annex L. Complaint-Affidavit.
6 Rejoinder-Affidavit. P.4.
7 Durant v Durant. Hagg. R. i.. p. 748.
8 Salvador v People. G.R. No. 164266. 23 July 2008.
9 US v Feliciano. G.R. No. L-12724. 10 August 1917.
10 Williams v Williams. Hagg. C. R. i. p.299.

reasonable and just man to the conclusion that the alleged act has been
committed, and the same permits no other possible explanation 11.
In a desperate want to free herself from criminal liability, the only defense
raised by Rota regarding the birth of Joseph Hubbard is the possibility of
undergoing artificial insemination. This deserves no consideration. It is supported
neither by documents nor testimony; she never even raised it as a fact, but only
as a possibility. It is settled that the burden of proof lies upon he who alleges, not
he who denies. In alleging that it is possible that she had resorted to artificial
insemination, without providing proof for the same, she failed to discharge the
burden of proof incumbent upon her.
Regarding the existence of the third element of the crime of adultery, we rule in
favor of the complainant. The fact that Hubbard, together with Rota, tried to claim
the paternity of a child clearly not his, and where in the Birth Certificate thereof is
written the name of the biological father (Casserly), shows not only intent to claim
the child, but also intent to deprive Casserly of his status as Summers father.
Starting a relationship with a woman raising children on her own should have
surely raised in his mind some questions as to her marital status, and to contend
otherwise is not in accord with logic and human nature. From the circumstances
surrounding the case, we rule that Hubbard knew of the subsisting marriage of
Rota with Casserly, yet still proceeded to have carnal relations with her in
disregard of the same.
Stressing that the element of sexual intercourse was proven by
circumstantial evidence, which all took place within the jurisdiction of the court,
we hold that the court acquired jurisdiction over the case. While the accused
properly contended that in criminal cases, the venue of the commission of the
crime is essential in its prosecution 12, the Supreme Court is yet to rule on the
same issue with respect to adultery. However, foreign jurisprudence has settled
that it is not necessary to prove the fact of adultery in a particular time and
particular place; general cohabitation is enough 13. This is more in accord with the
11 Maddy, et. al.. 1985. Cases Argued and Determined in the Arches and Prerogative Courts of
Cantebury. p.52.
12 Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires in the complaint: (1) the
name of the accused; (2) the designation of the offense given by the statute; (3) the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; (4) the name of the offended party; (5) the approximate date
of the commission of the offense; and (6) the place where the offense was committed; People v Garcia.
G.R. No. 159450. 30 March 2010.
13 Supra at (11). p. 52.

intent of the legislature and the consideration of the private nature of the crime
itself.

II.The alleged commission of concubinage by Casserly does not free Rota from
criminal liability.
To absolve herself from liability, Rota alleged that since Casserly is also
currently committing concubinage with a certain Pamela Sherlock, no charges
can be pressed against her under the doctrine of unclean hands.
This contention is unmeritorious. All she had presented before this court
as proof of concubinage of her husband is her own allegations, which cannot be
accepted as evidence, following the established rule that mere allegation is not
evidence and is not equivalent to proof. 14
Even assuming arguendo that she has proved the concubinage beyond
reasonable doubt, Casserly is correct in saying that pari delicto does not find
application in the instant case. Pari delicto, meaning two or more people at fault
are all guilty of a crime 15, has the effect of barring the institution of a complaint
by a party equally guilty of the same. However, it has been primarily applied only
to contracts with illegal considerations, evidenced by its mention in the Civil
Code, under Articles 1411 and 1412 of Chapter 9, entitled Void and Inexistent
Contracts. While it is conceded that the concept of pari delicto has been in the
past considered in selected criminal cases, the same is not practicable in
adultery, where a more specific rule is present. The controlling rule settled by
jurisprudence is that the commission of concubinage by the husband shall not
free the adulterous wife from criminal liability, but it serves only to mitigate the
same16. In consideration of the maxim lex specialis derogat legi generali, the
particular rule settled by jurisprudence, rather than pari delicto, should be
applied.

III.Neither consent nor pardon was extended to the offenders by the complainant.
Rota further alleges that according to Article 344 of the Revised Penal
Code, Casserly is barred from pursuing a criminal charge for adultery, for he has
14 De Jesus v Guerrero. G.R. No. 171491. 2 September 2009.
15 Herbert, A. P.. 1935,. Uncommon Law.
16 People v Florez. G.R. No. 26089-CR. 6 April 1964.

consented to the same. Casserly denies such allegation, stressing that not once
did he give such consent, express or implied.
In light of the confusion of the accused regarding the distinction between
consent and pardon, as evidenced by her interchanging use of the said terms,
we deem it proper to differentiate the two. Their difference lies in the period of
grant by the offended party: while consent is granted prior to the adulterous act,
pardon is granted after the illicit affair 17. Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code
provides:
Article 344: x x x The offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including both parties, if they are both alive, nor in any case,
if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. x x x

Rota avers that the fact that Casserly already had suspicions as early as January
2015 and decided not to file charges at the time, and that he still continued
seeing the petitioner and their children, with Joseph Hubbard joining them on
occasions, shows that Casserly has given an implied consent to her adulterous
acts.
This contention is bereft of merit. Jurisprudence shows that the courts are slow in
exercising the power granted to them in classifying acts as implied
consent/pardon. In fact, the only acts that the Court held as constituting implied
consent are intercourse of the husband with the wife subsequent to her
adulterous acts18, and continued cohabitation with the adulterous wife despite his
knowledge of such acts19. Using these instances as standards, we rule that
Casserly did not give implied consent or pardon to the adulterous acts of the
offenders.
The mere delay in the filing of a complaint cannot be categorized as the same
with the mentioned acts constituting implied consent/pardon. Courts have
consistently held that delay in the filing of a complaint, if satisfactorily explained,
indicates neither consent nor pardon of the offenses committed 20. Casserly has
satisfied this court with the explanation that he withheld filing a complaint for the

17 Arroyo v CA. G.R. No. 96602. 19 November 1991

18 People v Muguerza. 13 CA Rep 1079.
19 People v Sensano. G.R. No. L-37720. 27 March 1933.
20 People v Jumawan. G.R. No. 187495. 21 April 2014.

reason that he is afraid that Rota will hide his daughter from her, an act which
she has done in the past21.
This court commends Casserlys admirable attempt at keeping friendly
relations with Rota despite congnizance of the illicit affair, for the sake of their
children. The effort to keep the family together, and to avoid inflicting upon their
children unnecessary stress and trauma surely cannot amount to consent,
especially considering that in filing a complaint the children may be prompted to
testify against one of their parents.

Closing Statement
The gist of the crime of adultery, under the Spanish law from which we sourced
the Revised Penal Code including Art 333 thereof, is the danger of introducing
spurious heirs into the family (which in fact was present in the instant case, in the
person of Joseph Edward Rota Hubbard), impairing the rights of the real heirs,
and where a man may be put in a situation where he is forced to maintain a
family not his own22. The statute ensures the protection of the honor of the
husband and the purity of the family, coupled with the States intent to safeguard
the public peace and provide for the general welfare of the community 23. The
same is a furtherance of the constitutional recognition of the sanctity of the
family life, with the corresponding mandate to protect and strengthen the same
as a basic autonomous social institution 24. By these reasons, in addition to the
dictate of moral law and family traditions deeply ingrained in our culture, the acts
of the two accused cannot be passed upon without swift punishment.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, this court finds accused Mia
Alhambra Rota and Steven Edward Hubbard GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of the crime of ADULTERY as defined and penalized under Article 333 of
the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences each of them to suffer
imprisonment ranging from one (1) year, eight (8) months, minimum of prision

21 Reply-Affidavit. P.5.
22 U.S. v Mata. G.R. No. L-6300. 2 March 1911.
23 Supra at (1).
24 Article II, Section 12. 1987 Constitution.

correccional as minimum penalty, to three (3) years, six (6) months and twentyone (21) days, medium of prision correccional as maximum penalty.
SO ORDERED.

COSICO, DENJI
Judge

FAMATIGAN, ARA CHESKA

Judge

MACASAET, DANIELA MARIE

Judge