REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Sta. Rosa City, Laguna

CHRISTOPHER PATRICK CASSERLY, Criminal Case No.

Complainant,
Present:

-versus-

MIA ALHAMBRA ROTA and

STEVEN EDWARD HUBBARD, Promulgated:
Respondents.

X-----------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

Filed before this court is a DISMISSAL DITO, DI KO LANG ALAM IYONG

TERM

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

On (date), complainant Christopher Patrick Casserly filed a complaint

against respondent Mia Alhambra Rota and Steven Edward Hubbard for
adultery under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Respondents
denied the allegations thru her counterclaim and moved to dismiss the complaint
for lack of proof and jurisdiction by this honorable court. This prompted the case
be settled as to the guilt of the respondents and jurisdiction of this court.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:

Prior to the complaint, complainant and respondent Mia Alhambra Rota

(respondent Rota) were married in Binan, Laguna dated March 22, 2010 until
they had decided to move in Spain with his wifes son from previous marriage.
After three years of living together, respondent wished to have a baby girl which
gave rise to Summer, born on May 6, 2013 in Barcelona, Spain.

Sometime in October 2013, respondent Rota requested to return to the

Philippines due to the death of her father which the complainant consented and
even gave PhP 300, 000.00 for funeral expenses. Respondent Rota then
returned to the Philippines with their daughter Summer, however complainant
discovered the fraudulent excuse of respondent Rota who had not adjusted her
deluxe-living life. He came to follow in the Philippines sometime in December
2013 and had celebrated Christmas with his family in Palawan.

All went well until complainant left the Philippines in January 2014. Before
he left, they came to agree that they would be moving in Ireland but a month after
the agreement, respondent Rota had changed her mind. Subsequently, in March
24, 2014, respondent Rota wished for them be together again however, it was
withdrawn sometime in April 2014, where respondent Rota sent an email to the
complainant stating that it was over between them since she was seeing another
man and if he wished see Summer, they would be celebrating their daughters
first birthday in Thailand. Complainant went to Thailand but no avail.
 Sometime in January 2015, almost nine months later, complainant saw
respondent Rota who was six months pregnant then. It was when he discovered
his wifes paramour, respondent Steven Edward Hubbard (respondent
Hubbard), where photos of them taken from respondent Rotas residence were
displayed on the social media. Their illicit affair gave birth to Joseph Edward Rota
Hubbard which was sustained by the birth certificate indicating being born on
April 19, 2015 at the Asian Hospital and Medical Center and respondent Hubbard
as the biological father. Respondent Hubbard even annotated Summers birth
certificate claiming as his biological daughter.

Through then, complainant filed a Complaint, thru his legal counsel Atty.
Mary Ann Tolete, alleging that his wife respondent Rota had been cohabiting with
her paramour respondent Hubbard despite their existing marriage, where the
said illicit affair was punishable under Article 433 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC).

In the Counter, filed by respondent Rota, she wished to dismiss the

complaint denying the complainants allegation and claimed the following: (1)
complainant failed to prove the elements for commission of adultery; (2) the
honorable court lacks the jurisdiction to discern the case; (3) complainant came
with unclean hands having concubine with Pamela Sherlock, sister of his ex-
girlfriend with whom he had a child; and (4) complainant had condoned and/or
consented the same.

On the first ground, respondent averred loss of probable cause, where an

information demands more than bare suspicion. She argued that her alleged
pregnancy didnt automatically resolve to adulterous conduct considering the
advance technology of the generation, including artificial insemination, and when
complainant saw her, respondent Hubbard was not present basing it only on the
alleged photos. The said photos were only establishment of good and not an illicit
relationship because if so, every photos taken with her would constitute an affair.
 As to the second ground, complainant failed to establish the jurisdiction of
this honorable court. Nowhere in the complaint mentioned where the crime or the
elements of the purported crime were committed, where pursuant to Section 10,
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, had it provided:

Section 10. Place of commission of the

offense. The complaint or information is sufficient if it
can be understood from its allegations that the offense
was committed or some of the essential ingredients
occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the
court, unless the particular place where it was
committed constitutes an essential element of the
offense or is necessary for its identification.

On the third ground, respondent cited the illicit affair of the complainant with
Pamela Sherlock, sister of his ex-girlfriend with whom he had a child. Thus, he
was not allowed to seek redress as he constituted the same conduct as the
respondent.

As to the fourth ground, respondent asserted the consent of the

complainant as manifested from his complaint stating where the respondent, being
pregnant, was seen with another man averring it was respondent Hubbard. She
further stated that she allowed complainant to visit Summer whenever respondent
Hubbard was out of the country, where they had become friends. Thus,
respondent sustained complainants exclusion to file any complaint in accordance
to Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, provided:

Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions.

xxx
 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 the guilty
parties, if both alive, nor in any case, if the offended
party has consented to the offense or pardoned the
offenders.

Complainant, in his Reply, alleged that respondent Rota failed to establish

her innocence and merely denied all the charges. It was clear that their conduct
constituted adultery where respondent Rota had conceived a child despite his
absence and it was very illogical to undergone artificial insemination considering
her cohabitation with respondent Hubbard. He further alleged that this honorable
court was bestowed with the jurisdiction as the charged being committed in B3 L3
Fiducia St. Valenza, Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, where respondents lived
together as husband and wife, as attested by Alicia o Aileen A. Mojica, the former
nanny of Summer. The claim for consent was described as knowledge, which
didnt equate to the same and the concept of pari delicto as valid defense for
adultery had no standing as the unclean hands doctrine did not absolve the
offender from transgression but likewise mitigate the same. Consequently, direct
evidence did not to be presented since circumstantial evidence corroborated the
facts leading the court for reasonable ground for the commission of adultery.

In respondent Rotas Rejoinder to the complainant, she emphasized for

the failure to establish the element of adultery where it lacked to prove the acts or
omission constituting the offense or her sexual intercourse with respondent
Hubbard and the insistence of photos were only product of licentious mind. The
residential address failed to institute as a venue for the offense as it was mention
only as the address of respondent Rota. Corroboration of Ms. Mojicas statement
lacked credibility since she worked as nanny from September to October 2015
and she ascertained respondent Hubbards stay in the residence sometime in
January 2016. Condonation for the offense need not be expressed as the
conduct of the complainant itself constituted implied consent and even his
admission of knowledge. There being no probable cause of the offense,
respondent refuted the allegations against her being only conjectures of thoughts
and presumptions without just and sustaining evidence.

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

Whether or not respondents Mia Alhambra Rota and Steven Edward

Hubbard are guilty for adultery under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC).

RULING:

In the commission for adultery, Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that:

ART. 333. Who are guilty of adultery. 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.
Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this
offense while being abandoned without justification by
the offended spouse, the penalty next lower in degree
than that provided in the next preceding paragraph
shall be imposed.
 To prove the same, elements constituting the crime needs
to be sustained which includes:

(1) That the woman is married;

(2) That she had sexual intercourse with a man not her
husband;
(3) That as regards the man with whom she has sexual
intercourse, he must know her to be married;

As a general rule, the husband can testify against the wife in an adultery
case because while adultery is in one sense a public crime, it can only be
prosecuted with a few exceptions on the complaint of the aggrieve party. Adultery
would come within the provisions of section 383, paragraph 3, of the Code of
Civil Procedure, as amended, as an action for a crime committed by the wife
against the husband. The nature of the crime of adultery is such that it will not be
often when it can be established by direct evidence. Nevertheless, strong
circumstantial and corroborative evidence such as will lead the guarded
discretion of a reasonable and just man to the conclusion that the alleged act has
1
been committed is sufficient to sustain a conviction for adultery. 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 respondent
and, indeed, contrary to the contention of counsel for the complainant. 2

In the case at bar, respondent Rota had alleged that the complainant
failed to prove the charges on them. However, the allegation of the complainant
are further corroborated by the circumstantial evidence presented. Complainant
1 The United States v. Margarita Feliciano, G.R. No. 103517 (August 10, 1917)

2 The United States v. Fabiana Legaspi and Paulino Pulongbaret, G.R. No.
103517 (August 19, 1909)
had left the country sometime in January 2014 and it was after a year, January
2015, when they met again. By then, respondent Rota was pregnant for about
six months, which is impossible for the complainant to be the father. Contention
for Artificial Insemination was not sustained by the counterclaim of respondent
Rota nor was there any medical information or certificate was stipulated to
prove the same. There was neither knowledge nor consent for the doing of
respondent Rota considering they were spouses. Despite photos on social
media to charge respondent Hubbard, the act of annotation on the birth
certificate of Summer, where the former claimed to be the biological father of
the latter manifest both knowledge for the existence of marriage and
consummation of the offense, which the act of annotation is not objected nor
counterclaimed by respondent Rota in her affidavit. Thus, the adulterous act of
respondents stand and are evident as sustained by the circumstantial evidence
presented in the complaint.

To emphasize the consent rendered by the complainant, on the basis of

his conduct, would be immaterial. In the Guinucud case, the Court found that the
complaining husband thru their agreement with his wife consented to, and
acquiesced in, the adulterous relations existing between the accused, and he is,
therefore, not authorized by law to institute the criminal proceedings. There is
implied pardon when the offended party continued to live with his spouse even
after the commission of the offense. However such consent or pardon cannot be
implied when the offended party allows his wife to continue living in the conjugal
home after her arrest only in order to take care of their children. 3

Respondent Rota averred the implied consent given by complainant

where complainant was permitted to spend time with Summer whenever
respondent Hubbard is out of the country. She allowed the complainant to stay
within the vicinity of their residence for convenience on his visit to their daughter,

3 People of the Philippines v. Edgardo Yap v Boca and Simplicio Osmena y

Ocaya, G.R. No. 103517 (February 9, 1994)
communicate thru Skype and even had celebrated Summers birthday in her
residence. However, such instance does not provide condonation nor consent.
The act of the complainant constitutes for his right to his daughter Summer and
not a manifestation of condonation for the adulterous act. The visitation and
communication are merely about Summer and nothing about a good relationship
between the parties nor consent, as laid by the respondent. If the contention on
consent by respondent Rota is true then the instant application by the
complainant for the offense would be in contrary of his act, and even if the
consent has been rendered subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the
complainant would have at least desisted the complaint. Such instances does not
appear in the case to prove the consent, both express and implied, to absolve
the respondent from any offenses not bar the complainant to file the same.

Under the pari delicto doctrine, the parties to a controversy are equally
culpable or guilty, they shall have no action against each other, and it shall leave
the parties where it finds them. This doctrine finds expression in the maxims "ex
dolo malo nonoritur actio" and "in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis. 4 The
doctrine likewise stipulates that the guilty parties to an illegal contract are not
entitled to any relief, cannot prevent a recovery if doing so violates the public
policy against unjust enrichment.5

Consequently, the concept of pari delicto cannot be appreciate. The

allegation that the complainant has been cohabiting with another woman equates
to the cohabitation of the respondents is not feasible since it would be unavailing
and deceitful for an offended spouse to appear if he himself is guilty of the same
then assailed his redress and grievances. Likewise, the defense claimed by
respondent Rota is not found in the Revised Penal Code, but only in Article 1411

4 Atty. Manuel T. Ubarra v. Judge Luzviminda M. Mapalad, A.M. No. MTJ-91-622

(March 22, 1993)

5 Domingo Gonzalo v. John Tarnate, Jr., G.R. No. 160600 (January 15, 2014)
of the Civil Code.6 Thus, the defense cannot stand being moot and academic,
and allowing such defense would be contrary not only to the right of the offended
party but also the legislative intent in separating the coverage for control under
the Revised Penal Code and Civil Code.

For acts constituting adultery, direct evidence nor in flagrante delicto need
not be sustained. Corroboration of circumstantial evidence can be appreciated so
long as it would lead the court to factual circumstances and leaves no room to
the guilt of the offender. The statements of the complainant are consistent and
logical enough to lead into real experiences and believed to have been
consummated by the respondents. The denial of the respondents does not
disprove their guilt but weakens their defense as nothing was presented in
contrary of the prosecution.

6 Eduardo Arroyo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
96602 (November 19, 1991)Ruby Vera-Neri v. The People of the Philippines and
Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96715 (November 19, 1991)