Facts: 

William was married to Zenaida. They have two daughters, Karen and Wendy. Zenaida died ahead of her mother Manolita, William's mother-in-law. In 1992, William made Manolita sign special powers of attorney appointing Wendy, then only 20 years old, as Manolita’s attorney-in-fact to sell and dispose four valuable pieces of land in Tagaytay City. William told Manolita (who was already completely blind) that the documents she was signing was merely for paying taxes. Believing William's misrepresentation, Manolita signed the documents. The parcels of land were sold and William misappropriated the proceeds thereof amounting to P22,034,000.

After the death of Manolita, Mediatrix, one of the surviving daughters, filed a petition for the settlement of Manolita’s intestate estate before the RTC praying the she be appointed administratrix thereof. After her appointment as such, Mediatrix learned from her niece Wendy about the fraudulent sale of the parcels of land and the misappropriation committed by William. Thus, as the duly appointed administrator of the estate of her deceased mother, she filed a case for estafa against her brother-in-law, William.

William moved to quash the Information claiming that under Article 332 (1) of the RPC, his relationship to Manolita, his mother-in-law exempts him from criminal liability. The RTC sustained William’s motion and dismissed the information. The court said that the death of Zenaida did not extinguish the relationship by affinity of her husband William and her mother Manolita, and therefore Article 332(1) exempting him from criminal liability was still applicable. The CA affirmed the decision. 


Issues:

1. Did the death of Zenaida dissolve the relationship by affinity of her surviving spouse William and her mother Manolita?

2. Should William be exempt from criminal liability for reason of his relationship to Manolita?


Held:

1. There are two views on the subject:

The first view (the terminated affinity view) holds that relationship by affinity terminates with the dissolution of the marriage either by death or divorce which gave rise to the relationship of affinity between the parties. Under this view, the relationship by affinity is simply coextensive and coexistent with the marriage that produced it. Its duration is indispensably and necessarily determined by the marriage that created it. Thus, it exists only for so long as the marriage subsists, such that the death of a spouse ipso facto ends the relationship by affinity of the surviving spouse to the deceased spouses blood relatives.

The second view (the continuing affinity view) maintains that 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. 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.

After due consideration and evaluation of the relative merits of the two views, we hold that the second view is more consistent with the language and spirit of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

First, the continuing affinity view has been applied in the interpretation of laws that intend to benefit step-relatives or in-laws. Since the purpose of the absolutory cause in Article 332(1) is meant to be beneficial to relatives by affinity within the degree covered under the said provision, the continuing affinity view is more appropriate.

Second, the language of Article 332(1) which speaks of relatives by affinity in the same line is couched in general language. It made no distinction between the spouse of ones living child and the surviving spouse of ones deceased child.

Third, the spirit of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal. 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.

Fourth, the fundamental principle in applying and in interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused. 

Thus, for purposes of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the relationship by affinity created between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of either party to the marriage which created the affinity. (The same principle applies to the justifying circumstance of defense of ones relatives under Article 11[2] of the Revised Penal Code, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of grave offense committed against ones relatives under Article 13[5] of the same Code and the absolutory cause of relationship in favor of accessories under Article 20 also of the same Code.)


2. No. The coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited 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. 

The Information against William charges him with estafa. However, the real nature of the offense is determined by the facts alleged in the Information, not by the designation of the offense. What controls is not the title of the Information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the Information. In other words, it is the recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not the nomenclature of the offense, that determines the crime being charged in the Information. 

A reading of the facts alleged in the Information reveals that William is being charged not with simple estafa but with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. He resorted to falsification of public documents (particularly, the special power of attorney and the deeds of sale) as a necessary means to commit the estafa. Since the crime with which respondent was charged was not simple estafa but the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, he cannot avail himself of the absolutory cause provided under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code in his favor.

The purpose of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal. Thus, the action provided under the said provision simply 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 a public document, however, the matter acquires a very serious public dimension and goes beyond the respective rights and liabilities of family members among themselves. Effectively, when the offender resorts to an act that breaches public interest in the integrity of public documents as a means to violate the property rights of a family member, he is removed from the protective mantle of the absolutory cause under Article 332 (Intestate Estate of Vda. De Carungcong vs. People, G.R. 181409, February 11, 2010).