Relationship is an important element in certain crimes such as parricide, adultery, concubinage, and others. In Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code its says “No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by…Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line…” (emphasis supplied). Meaning, those mentioned in the article cannot be charged with any criminal cases involving the offenses of theft, swindling or malicious mischief against each other. Here, relationship is an absolutory cause. Even if the perpetrator has criminal intent, he cannot be prosecuted. “As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the offender for the said crimes but leaves the private offended party with the option to hold the offender civilly liable” (Carungcong vs. People, G.R. 181409 February 11, 2010). A case reached the Supreme Court on the applicability of Article 332 and more importantly on the novel issue of whether the death of a spouse terminates the relationship by affinity
Carungcong vs. People
The Administratrix (female administrator) of the estate of the deceased Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong filed a criminal complaint against the son-in-law of the deceased William Sato. Zenaida Caruncong-Sato (William’s wife) died ahead of her mother Manolita. The complaint alleged that Sato defrauded Manolita by making her sign a document when she was already blind. Manolita was made to believe that she was signing documents with respect to taxes of her properties but in fact it was a Special Power of Attorney in favor of her grand daughter Wendy (Sato’s daughter). Through said SPA Sato was able to sell Manolita’s properties but never surrendered the proceeds to the latter until her death. The city prosecutor dismissed the case but the Secretary of the Department of Justice reversed it and ordered the prosecutor to file the case. The trial court granted Sato’s Motion to Quash and dismissed the case but the State filed a motion for reconsideration but was also denied. The Court of Appeals also denied the subsequent Petition for Certiorari until it reached the Supreme Court.
Did Zenaida’s Death Terminate The Relationship by Affinity?
The lower courts held that Sato cannot be held criminally liable because he is absolved by Article 332 of the Penal Code. The State counters with the argument that Zenaida’s death terminated the relationship between Manolita and Sato as “in-laws” and he is no longer covered by Article 332. The Supreme Court admitted that this is its first time to tackle this issue. Since there is no jurisprudence on this matter, the Court used American Cases as guide. There are two views: Terminated Affinity and the Continuing Affinity. The Court decreed that the Continuing Affinity View should apply: “Under this view, the relationship by affinity endures even after the dissolution of the marriage that produced it as a result of the death of one of the parties to the said marriage. This view considers that, where statutes have indicated an intent to benefit step-relatives or in-laws, the tie of affinity between these people and their relatives-by-marriage is not to be regarded as terminated upon the death of one of the married parties” (G.R. 181409 February 11, 2010). The SC went on to justify its decision thus: “the Constitution declares that the protection and strengthening of the family as a basic autonomous social institution are policies of the State and that it is the duty of the State to strengthen the solidarity of the family. Congress has also affirmed as a State and national policy that courts shall preserve the solidarity of the family. In this connection, the spirit of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal. The view that relationship by affinity is not affected by the death of one of the parties to the marriage that created it is more in accord with family solidarity and harmony.”
