Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong , G.R. No.

181409, February 11, 2011

October 12, 2016

by Rossville “Aeron” B. Violanta

Article 38 of Void and Voidable Marriages

Facts:

Mediatrix Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix of petitioner intestate estate of her deceased mother
Manolita Gonzales vda. De Carungcong, filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-law, William Sato, a Japanese
national. It was alleged that the said accused feloniously induced Manolita Gonzales, the owner of the estate and herein deceased, to
sign and thumb mark a special power of a orney (in the pretense of presenting a document pertaining to taxes) which authorized the
sale, assignment, transfer and disposition of the la er’s properties. In relation to this, the accused moved for the dismissal of the case.

As a defense against his arrant prosecution, the accused here applies Art 332 of the Revised Penal Code. He cites that he falls under the
enumeration of those relatives who shall be exempt from criminal prosecution. Being a relative by affinity, he cannot be held liable for
the crime of estafa as stated in the law. He further counters that the same law makes no distinction that the relationship may not be
invoked in case of death of spouse at the time the crime was allegedly commi ed. Thus, the death of his spouse Zenaida Carungcong
Sato though dissolved the marriage with the accused, did not on the other hand dissolve the mother in-law and son-law relationship
between Sato and his wife’s mother, Manolita. He then cannot be removed from the protective mantle of Art 332.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the death of William’s wife and Manolita’s daughter, Zenaida, extinguished the relationship by affinity between
William and Manolita.
2. Whether or not William should be exempt from criminal liability for reason of his relationship to Manolita.

Held:

1. No. Relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the deceased spouse continues even after the death of
the deceased spouse, regardless of whether the marriage produced children or not.
 2. No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to the felonies of theft, swindling and malicious
mischief. Under the said provision, the State condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief. 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.

However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable
language of the provision shows that it applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not
apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another crime, such as theft through falsification or
estafa through falsification.

Sato, the accused, could not avail of the beneficial application of ART 332 considering that the crime he commi ed falls under the nature
of a complex crime which is the crime estafa through falsification of public document and does not anymore concern private relations of
family members. He then can be held criminally liable.