A. Mr.

XXX owns a boarding house where he knowingly allowed

children to be videotaped while simulating explicit sexual
activities. What crime or crimes did XXX commit, if any?
Explain.

Suggested Answer:
Mr. XXX violated RA No. 9774 or also known as the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009 by committing one of the punishable
acts under section 4, subparagraph e:

“(e) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue for

the commission of prohibited acts as, but not limited to, dens,
private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or in establishments
purporting to be a legitimate business”

In this case, Mr. XXX owns a boarding in which he allowed

children to be videotaped in the act of explicit sexual activities
thus violated the said act.

B. In 2004, S, a Filipino citizen and resident of Baguio City, and L,

a West German citizen were married at St. Joseph Catholic
Church, in Baguio City. In 2007, L returned to West Germany
where he initiated a divorce proceeding, against Socorro
before a local court which, in due time, promulgated in July
2009 a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage.
In September 2012, L returned to the Philippines only to find
out that S had filed a case of legal separation against him. In
December 2014, L who learned of the cohabitation of S and E,
her childhood sweetheart, when he (L) was in Germany, filed a
sworn complaint for adultery against S and E with the Office of
the City Fiscal of Baguio. S's counsel moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that S is not liable for the offense.
Resolve the motion.

Suggested Answer:
The motion to dismiss L’s complaint for adultery is correct.

According to the case of Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera:

 “Thus, the person who initiates the adultery case must be an
offended spouse, and by this is meant that he is still married to
the accused spouse, at the time of the filing of the complaint.”

In the present case, the fact that L obtained a valid divorce in

his country, West Germany, promulgated in July 2009. Said
divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the
Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned in view
of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of
status of persons. Thus, he no longer has the right to institute
proceedings against S.

C. H and W are husband and wife living together in an apartment

within the university belt. They took in S, a male student and
town mate as a boarder. Before long W and S fell in love with
each other until H caught them in bed. If you were the
investigating fiscal, to whom H complained, what aggravating
circumstance or circumstances would you liege in the
Information for Adultery against W and S? Why?

Suggested Answer:
Adultery aggravated by obvious ungratefulness should be filed
against W and S.

The elements of obvious ungratefulness under Art. 14 are the

following:

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender

2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime
against the offended party
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness

In the case at bar, there is obvious ungratefulness because of

the fact that H took in S, a student and town mate, as a boarder
in their apartment, thus the crime of adultery aggravated by
obvious ungratefulness.