In-laws

Under Article 332 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, relatives by affinity in the direct line are exempt from criminal liability for the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief. They are only liable civilly. Hence a husband cannot be held criminally liable for such crimes committed against the blood relatives of his wife and vice versa (the in-laws). Since affinity is a familial relation resulting from marriage, will the death of a spouse that ends the marriage dissolve such relationship, thus rendering the other spouse already liable criminally for such crimes committed? This is the issue resolved in this case of Jimmy.

Jimmy was married to Zeny with two daughters Carrie and Winnie. In 1991, Zeny already died even ahead of her mother Lita, Jimmy’s mother-in-law. Sometime in 1992 when Zeny’s mother Lita was already completely blind, Jimmy was able to secure Lita’s signature and thumb-mark on a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) appointing his daughter Winnie then only 20 years old as Lita’s attorney-in-fact to sell and dispose four valuable pieces of land in Tagaytay City. Jimmy told Lita that the documents she was signing involved her taxes.

On the basis of the aforesaid SPA, Jimmy found buyers for three of the lands and asked Winnie her daughter to sign the Deeds of Absolute Sale in favor of the buyers for a total consideration of P1,150,000, although the actual amount received by Jimmy as proceeds of the sale was P22,034,000. Since Winnie was only 20 years old at that time, she was not in any position to oppose or refuse her father’s orders. Jimmy never accounted for the said proceeds of sale and misappropriated and misapplied them for his own use.

After the death of Lita on November 24, 1992, one of her surviving daughters Tricie, the sister of Zeny, filed a petition for the settlement of Lita’s intestate estate before the Regional Trial Court praying the she be appointed administratrix thereof. After her appointment as administratrix on June 22, 1995, Tricie learned from her niece Winnie about the fraudulent sale of the three parcels of land and the misappropriation committed by Jimmy.

So, on the basis of Tricie’s complaint-affidavit supported by Winnie’s sworn statement detailing the fraudulent sale, an Information was filed against Jimmy charging him with the complex crime of estafa (swindling) through falsification of public instruments.

Jimmy moved for the quashing of the Information claiming that under Article 332 (1) of the RPC, his relationship to the person allegedly defrauded, the deceased Lita who was his mother-in-law exempts him from criminal liability. The lower court sustained Jimmy’s motion and dismissed the information. The court said that the death of Zeny did not extinguish the relationship by affinity of her husband Jimmy and her mother Lita, and therefore Article 332(1) exempting him from criminal liability was still applicable. This ruling was sustained by the Court of Appeals (CA). Were the lower court and the CA correct?

The lower court and the CA are correct in ruling that Zeny’s death did not dissolve the relationship by affinity of her surviving spouse Jimmy and her mother Lita. Jimmy is still the son-in-law of Lita following Zeny’s death. Nevertheless the two courts are not correct in dismissing the Criminal Information against Jimmy.

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. Where statutes have indicated the 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. The spirit of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal pursuant to the Constitutional provision requiring the State to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.

However, the coverage of Article 332 of the RPC is strictly limited to the simple crimes of theft, swindling (estafa) and malicious mischief. It does not apply when any of these crimes is complexed with another with another crime as estafa through falsification. In this case, the Information charges Jimmy not with simple estafa but with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. The action provided under said article concerns the private relations of the parties as family members and is limited to the civil aspect between the offender and the offended party. When estafa is committed through falsification of public document, however, the matter acquires a very serious public dimension and goes beyond the respective rights and liabilities of family members among themselves. Hence Jimmy is removed from the protective mantle of Article 332 exempting him from criminal liability (Intestate Estate of Vda. De Carungcong vs. People, G.R. 181409, February 11, 2010).