Chua-Chiba vs. Chiba and Llona

A complaint for adultery must be filed by the offended spouse personally; a complaint-affidavit filed by the offended spouse's authorized representative, even if the offended spouse's own complaint-affidavit is attached as an annex, does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. The requirement is jurisdictional in the sense that the complaint starts the prosecutory proceeding, and the Court has invariably maintained strict adherence to it.

The case concerns the prosecution of adultery, a private crime under Philippine law. Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, adultery shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. This requirement was imposed "out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial," leaving it to the option of the aggrieved spouse to seek judicial redress. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both guilty parties, if both are alive, nor in any case if the offended party has consented to the offense or pardoned the offenders.

On December 21, 2022, respondent Jin Chiba (Jin), through his authorized representative Marvin O. Ayende (Marvin), filed a complaint affidavit charging petitioner Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba (Aurel) and respondent Michael Llona (Michael) with the crimes of adultery and grave threats before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Pasay City (OCP-Pasay City). Following a preliminary investigation, the OCP-Pasay City found probable cause to indict Aurel and Michael of adultery and grave threats in a Resolution dated February 21, 2023. On March 6, 2023, two separate Informations for grave threats and adultery were filed before the MeTC Pasay City-Branch 167, which found probable cause to hold Aurel and Michael for trial and issued the corresponding warrant of arrest with recommended PHP 36,000.00 bail against them. Aurel and Michael subsequently posted cash bonds for their provisional liberty.

On February 12, 2024, Aurel filed a Motion to dismiss ex abudanti ad cautelam before the MeTC Pasay City-Branch 167, seeking the dismissal of the adultery case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as the case could not be prosecuted by a complete stranger even if armed by a special power of attorney, and the grave threats case in view of the alleged deprivation of due process. The prosecution opposed the motion, averring that the grounds averred by Aurel were fabricated and that the motion to dismiss was a mere ploy to delay the proceedings.

In an Order dated March 12, 2024, the MeTC Pasay City-Branch 167 partially granted the motion and ordered the dismissal of the adultery case against Aurel and Michael. The MeTC held that the complaint-affidavit filed by Marvin, who was merely authorized by Jin to file the complaint on his behalf, could not be considered sufficient compliance with the legal requirements for filing an adultery case, particularly that it should be filed by the offended spouse. Jin moved for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated April 25, 2024. Jin then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 112. Meanwhile, the grave threats case was transferred to the MeTC of Pasay City, Branch 165.

In a Decision dated October 21, 2024, the RTC ruled in Jin's favor and directed the MeTC Pasay City-Branch 167 to reinstate the adultery case. The RTC found that the MeTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case, holding that the complaint-affidavit filed by Jin, which was attached to the complaint-affidavit by Marvin, sufficiently complied with the legal requirements for filing an adultery case. The RTC observed that Jin's complaint-affidavit: (a) narrated the facts and circumstances constituting the crime and explicitly and categorically charged Aurel and Michael of adultery; (b) contained all the elements of a valid complaint under Article 344 of the RPC and Rule 110, Section 5 of the Rules of Court; and (c) was attached to the Information as an integral part thereof and duly filed with the court. The RTC further found that Marvin's complaint-affidavit merely echoed Jin's averments and clearly stated that he was only Jin's authorized representative. Aurel moved for reconsideration, which was denied in an Order dated November 13, 2024. Aurel then directly filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

• Jurisdictional Requirement for Adultery: Petitioner argued that the RTC erred in finding that Jin's complaint-affidavit, which was attached to the complaint-affidavit filed by Marvin and the Information filed by the OCP-Pasay City, can be considered sufficient compliance with the requirements for filing an adultery case under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Rules of Court and Article 344 of the RPC.
• Proper Mode of Appeal: Petitioner maintained that the issue raised involved a pure question of law, thus properly raising it before the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari.

• Sufficiency of Complaint: Respondent Jin Chiba argued that his complaint-affidavit, which was attached to Marvin's complaint-affidavit, sufficiently complied with the legal requirements for filing an adultery case, as it narrated the facts constituting the crime, contained all the elements of a valid complaint, and was attached to the Information as an integral part thereof.
• Nature of Marvin's Role: Respondent contended that Marvin's complaint-affidavit merely echoed Jin's averments and clearly stated that Marvin was only Jin's authorized representative, thus the filing should be considered compliant with the jurisdictional requirements.

• Jurisdictional Requirement for Adultery: Whether the RTC erred in finding that Jin's complaint-affidavit, which was attached to the complaint-affidavit filed by Marvin and the Information filed by the OCP-Pasay City before the MeTC Pasay City-Branch 167, can be considered as sufficient compliance with the requirements for filing an adultery case under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Rules of Court and Article 344 of the RPC.
• Propriety of the Rule 45 Petition: Whether Aurel properly filed the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

• Jurisdictional Requirement for Adultery: No. The complaint for adultery was not initiated by Jin, the offended spouse, but by Marvin, his authorized representative. Although Jin submitted his own complaint-affidavit, it was only included as an annex to Marvin's complaint-affidavit. The jurisdictional requirement under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Article 344 of the RPC was not met, and the MeTC was correct in dismissing the case.
• Propriety of the Rule 45 Petition: Yes. The issue raised by Aurel — whether the RTC erred in interpreting that Jin's complaint-affidavit attached to Marvin's complaint-affidavit can be considered sufficient compliance with the requirements for filing an adultery case — involved a pure question of law, as its resolution did not require examination of the probative value of the evidence presented.

• Jurisdictional Requirement for Adultery: Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. Article 344 of the RPC states the same requirement. Adultery, being a private offense, cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse, who cannot institute the criminal prosecution without including both guilty parties, if both are alive, nor in any case if the offended party has consented or pardoned the offenders. The Court cited People vs. Dela Cruz for the proposition that the requirement in Article 344 is jurisdictional in the sense that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding, not that the complaint confers jurisdiction on the court to try the case. The Court has invariably maintained strict adherence to this jurisdictional requirement, which was imposed "out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial." In this case, the prosecution for adultery commenced with a complaint-affidavit filed by Marvin, Jin's authorized representative. Although Jin submitted his own complaint-affidavit accusing Aurel and Michael of adultery, it was only included as an annex to Marvin's complaint-affidavit. Thus, the jurisdictional requirement was not met, and since no valid complaint for adultery was filed, the MeTC was correct in dismissing the case.
• Propriety of the Rule 45 Petition: Under the Rules of Court, there are three modes of appeal from RTC decisions: (a) ordinary appeal before the CA under Rule 41 where the decision assailed was rendered in the exercise of the RTC's original jurisdiction; (b) petition for review before the CA under Rule 42 where the decision assailed was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and (c) appeal by certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 where only questions of law shall be raised. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while a question of fact arises when the doubt is as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The test is not the appellation given to the question by the party raising it, but whether the appellate court can resolve the issue without examining or evaluating the evidence. Here, the issue raised by Aurel involved a pure question of law, as its resolution relied solely on what the law provides on the given set of facts without examining the probative value of the evidence.

• Jurisdictional Requirement for Private Crimes — The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. This requirement is jurisdictional in the sense that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding. The Court applied this doctrine strictly, holding that a complaint filed by the offended spouse's authorized representative, even with the offended spouse's own complaint-affidavit attached as an annex, does not satisfy the requirement.
• Private Nature of Adultery — Adultery is a private offense, and the right to commence an action or refrain therefrom is at the sole power and option of the offended party, who must decide whether to expose in public the vices, faults, and disgraceful acts within the family. The requirement that the complaint be filed by the offended spouse was imposed out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial.

• "The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse." — This is the controlling statutory language from Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Article 344 of the RPC, which the Court applied to determine that the jurisdictional requirement was not met.
• "When it is said that the requirement in Article 344 (that there shall be a complaint of the offended party) is jurisdictional, what is meant is that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding. It is not the complaint which confers jurisdiction on the court to try the case. The court's jurisdiction is vested in it by the Judiciary Law." — This quotation from People vs. Dela Cruz defines the nature of the jurisdictional requirement, clarifying that the complaint initiates the prosecutory proceeding rather than conferring jurisdiction on the court.
• "This legal requirement was imposed 'out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial.' The law leaves it to the option of the aggrieved spouse to seek judicial redress for the affront committed by the erring spouse." — This passage articulates the policy rationale behind the strict requirement that the offended spouse personally file the complaint for adultery.

• People vs. Dela Cruz, 433 Phil. 739 (2002) — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that the requirement in Article 344 that there shall be a complaint of the offended party is jurisdictional in the sense that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding.
• Donio-Teves vs. Vamenta, Jr., 218 Phil. 578 (1984) — Cited for the proposition that adultery, being a private offense, cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.
• Sugar Regulatory Administration vs. Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc., 937 Phil. 541 (2023) — Cited for the modes of appeal from RTC decisions under the Rules of Court.
• Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. People, 721 Phil. 760 (2013) — Cited for the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact in determining the proper mode of appeal.

• Article 344, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The Court applied this provision to hold that the complaint filed by Marvin, as Jin's authorized representative, did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement.
• Rule 110, Section 5, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The Court applied this rule in conjunction with Article 344 of the RPC to determine that no valid complaint for adultery was filed.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, where only questions of law shall be raised. The Court applied this rule to determine that Aurel properly filed the petition before the Supreme Court.

• Lazaro-Javier, J. — Concurred with the ponencia.
• M. Lopez, J. — Concurred with the ponencia.
• Leonen, S.A.J. (Chairperson) — Concurred with the ponencia and wrote a separate concurring opinion emphasizing that the prosecution of private crimes must be read strictly. He underscored the private nature of adultery, citing Isturis-Rebuelta vs. Rebuelta for the proposition that in private crimes, the right to commence an action or refrain therefrom is at the sole power and option of the offended party. He also quoted his own dissenting opinion in Valencia vs. People to explain that marital infidelity is a private matter between two married individuals that does not require government interference, and that the State cannot initiate a criminal complaint for these crimes as it is not an offended party. He voted to GRANT the Petition.

N/A — No dissenting opinion was noted in the provided text.