THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO MIRANDA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is a motion filed by the accused-appellant, Francisco Miranda, praying
that the present cause be dismissed on the ground that the offended party has
completely pardoned the offence against her, in accordance with article 344,
paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code.

The movant was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the
crime of qualified seduction according to article 443 of the old Penal Code, as
amended by Act No. 1773.

Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, amending article 443 of the old Penal
Code as amended by Act No. 1773 provides:

“ART. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction,
abduction, rape, and acts of lasciviousness.-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
both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall
have consented or pardoned the offenders.

“The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall
not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her
parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been
expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.

“In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the
marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this
paragraph shall also be applicable to the coprincipals, accomplices and
accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.”

Paragraph 3 of the legal provision above quoted prohibits a prosecution for
seduction, abduction, rape, or acts of lasciviousness, except upon a complaint
made by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in
any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named
persons, as the case may be. It does not prohibit the continuance of a
prosecution if the offended party pardons the offender after the cause has been
instituted, nor does it order the dismissal of said cause. The only act that
according to article 344 extinguishes the penal action and the penalty that may
have been imposed, is the marriage between the offender and the offended
party.

In People vs. Infante, G. R. No. 36270,^[1] an adultery case, the first division of this
court, interpreting article 344 with reference to that crime, declared in a
decision rendered by Justice Malcolm, promulgated on August 31, 1932, that in
order that the pardon of the aggrieved party may prevent the prosecution of the
adulterers, it must be granted before and not after the penal action has been
instituted.

In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold,
that the offended party’s pardon of the offender in a seduction case after the
criminal action has been instituted does not extinguish said action according to
paragraph 3, article 344, of the Revised Penal Code.

Wherefore, the motion for dismissal filed by the accused- appellant in this
case is hereby denied; So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand; Abad Santos, Hull,
Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concur.