People vs. Ilarde

An affidavit-complaint executed by the offended spouse that explicitly charges the accused with adultery and contains all the allegations required of a criminal complaint under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court constitutes the complaint contemplated by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, especially when said affidavit-complaint is attached to and made an integral part of the information filed in court.

Efraim Santibañez was lawfully married to Cecile Santibañez (also referred to as Cecile Soriano) in a civil ceremony on March 22, 1974, and in a religious ceremony on July 18, 1974. Avelino T. Javellana was a close friend of Efraim who frequented the Santibañez household. Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse, a requirement reiterated in Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. This jurisdictional requirement was designed out of consideration for the aggrieved party, who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than undergo the scandal of a public trial.

Efraim Santibañez was lawfully married to Cecile Soriano (also referred to as Cecile Santibañez) in a civil ceremony on March 22, 1974, before Judge Vicente Santos of the City Court of Pasay City, and in a religious ceremony on July 18, 1974, before Rev. Panfilo T. Brasil at the Parish Church of La Paz, Iloilo City. The couple established their conjugal home in Fundidor, Molo, Iloilo City. Avelino T. Javellana was a close friend of Efraim who frequented the Santibañez household to discuss matters concerning a court case between the Iloilo City Government and St. Therese Memorial Chapel, a business Efraim had given to his wife. Javellana knew that Cecile was Efraim's legally married wife.

Sometime during the last week of October 1980, Efraim's son Edmund confided that Cecile had been unfaithful and had been having an illicit relationship with another man. Edmund informed him that their maid Elsa Barios and driver Loreto Reales were aware of the relationship, and that the man usually visited the house and even slept there whenever Efraim was in Manila. Efraim and Edmund devised a plan to catch Cecile in the act of infidelity. After several experiments, Efraim removed one jalousy glass from the window of their master's bedroom so that the interior could be seen from outside once the curtain was brushed aside with a thin wire. On November 3, 1980, Efraim told his wife he was leaving for Manila, then executed the plan. Almost midnight of that day, his daughter-in-law Rebecca informed him that the operation was successful and resulted in the arrest of his wife and Atty. Bob Javellana inside their bedroom. Photographs were taken inside the master bedroom, which Efraim later identified as Annexes "C" through "J."

Upon returning to Iloilo City on November 4, 1980, Efraim filed a sworn complaint for adultery with the Integrated National Police, Iloilo Metro Police District, against Cecile Santibañez and Avelino T. Javellana. The complaint was immediately forwarded to the Office of the City Fiscal for preliminary investigation. On November 7, 1980, Efraim executed a detailed affidavit-complaint before City Fiscal Ricardo P. Galvez, recounting the antecedents of the apprehension in flagrante and stating: "I am formally charging my wife Cecile Sorianosos and Atty. Bob Javellana of the crime of adultery and would request that this affidavit be considered as a formal complaint against them."

Sometime in January 1981, before the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, Efraim learned he was sick with cancer and decided to leave for the United States for medical treatment. Before his departure, he executed a holographic Will dated January 10, 1981, disinheriting his wife on the ground that she had committed acts of adultery with Atty. Bob Javellana on the evening of November 3, 1980. He also filed a complaint for legal separation against her in Civil Case No. SP-11-309 with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in Iloilo City. On February 16, 1981, Efraim died in the United States. Notwithstanding his death, Fiscal Galvez issued a resolution on February 19, 1981, finding a prima facie case for adultery, prepared the information on March 3, 1981, and filed it with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on March 4, 1981. The information expressly stated that it was filed "upon sworn complaint originally filed by the offended party Efraim Santibañez," with copies of the sworn complaint and affidavit-complaint attached as Annexes "A" and "B."

Private respondents filed a motion to quash the information, contending that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the offense because the offended party had not filed the complaint required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Respondent Judge Ilarde granted the motion and dismissed the case, relying on the ruling in People vs. Santos. The City Fiscal's motion for reconsideration was denied.

• Compliance with Article 344: The Solicitor General, representing the petitioner, argued that the affidavit-complaint executed by Efraim Santibañez, which explicitly and categorically charged the accused with adultery and requested that it be considered a formal complaint, satisfied the requirement of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. The information itself expressly stated that it was filed upon the sworn complaint of the offended party, with copies attached as integral parts thereof.
• Distinguishability from People vs. Santos: The petitioner maintained that the ruling in People vs. Santos was inapplicable, because in that case the sworn statement was a mere narration of how the crime of rape was committed without an express charge, whereas Santibañez's affidavit-complaint contained both a narration of facts and an explicit charge of adultery against the accused.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Private respondents argued that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the offense charged, because the offended party had not filed the complaint required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which provide that the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.
• Reliance on People vs. Santos: Private respondents relied on the ruling in People vs. Santos, which held that a sworn statement or "salaysay" of the offended party that prompted the fiscal to conduct a preliminary investigation and file an information was not the complaint required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Sufficiency of the Complaint: Whether there has been compliance with the requirement of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, reiterated in Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, that the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party.

• Sufficiency of the Complaint: Yes. The affidavit-complaint filed by the offended spouse, which explicitly charged the accused with adultery and contained all the allegations required of a criminal complaint under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, and which was attached to and made an integral part of the information, constituted sufficient compliance with Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Sufficiency of the Complaint: The Court acknowledged its long line of decisions maintaining strict adherence to the requirement of Article 344, but emphasized that 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 overriding consideration in determining compliance should be the spirit rather than the letter of the law. The desire of Efraim Santibañez to bring his wife and her alleged paramour to justice was evident from: (a) the dispatch with which he filed his complaint with the police; (b) his strong and unequivocal statement in the affidavit filed with the Fiscal's Office expressly charging the accused and requesting that the affidavit be considered a formal complaint; (c) his filing of a complaint for legal separation; and (d) his disinheritance of his wife in his holographic Will. The Court distinguished People vs. Santos, where the "salaysay" was a mere narration of how the rape was committed without an express charge, and where the information commenced with the fiscal's accusation without mentioning the offended party as one of the accusers. In the present case, the affidavit-complaint not only narrated the facts constituting adultery but also explicitly charged the accused, and the information expressly stated it was filed upon the sworn complaint of the offended party. The affidavit-complaint contained all the elements of a valid complaint under Section 5, Rule 110 — it stated the names of the defendants, the designation of the offense, the acts complained of, the name of the offended party, the approximate time, and the place of commission. Moreover, it was attached to the information as an integral part and duly filed with the court. Relying on Fernandez vs. Lantin, the Court held that the filing in court of the affidavit or sworn statement of the offended party, if it contains all the allegations required of a criminal complaint, constitutes sufficient compliance with the law.

• Compliance with Article 344, Revised Penal Code — The crimes of adultery and concubinage 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. The overriding consideration in determining compliance is the spirit rather than the letter of the law — whether the offended party demonstrated a clear intent to seek judicial redress against the erring spouse.
• Sufficiency of a Complaint-Affidavit — An affidavit-complaint executed by the offended party constitutes a valid complaint under Article 344 if it contains all the elements required of a criminal complaint under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court: (a) the name of the defendant; (b) the designation of the offense by statute; (c) the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; (d) the name of the offended party; (e) the approximate time of the commission of the offense; and (f) the place wherein the offense was committed. When such affidavit-complaint is attached to and made an integral part of the information filed in court, there is sufficient compliance with the jurisdictional requirement.
• Distinguishing a Mere Narration from a Formal Charge — A sworn statement that merely narrates the facts of the crime without expressly charging the accused does not constitute the complaint required by Article 344, as held in People vs. Santos. However, where the sworn statement both narrates the facts and explicitly and categorically charges the accused with the offense, and where the information expressly states it is filed upon the sworn complaint of the offended party, the jurisdictional requirement is satisfied.

• "it must be borne in mind, however, that 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.'" — This passage articulates the rationale behind Article 344's complaint requirement and establishes that the spirit, not merely the letter, of the law should guide the determination of compliance.
• "the filing in court of which affidavit or sworn statement of the offended party, if it contains all the allegations required of a criminal complaint under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, constitutes sufficient compliance of the law." — This quotation, drawn from Fernandez vs. Lantin and applied in the decision, states the controlling rule that an affidavit-complaint meeting the formal requirements of a criminal complaint and filed with the court satisfies Article 344.
• "Upon these premises, We cannot but conclude that the adultery charge against private respondents is being prosecuted 'upon complaint filed by the offended party.'" — This is the Court's concluding statement on the sole issue, affirming that the jurisdictional prerequisite for prosecuting adultery had been met.

• People vs. Santos, 101 Phil. 798 — Distinguished. In Santos, the sworn statement ("salaysay") of the offended party was a mere narration of how the crime of rape was committed and did not constitute the complaint required by Article 344. The information also commenced with the fiscal's accusation without mentioning the offended party as one of the accusers. The Court held this ruling inapplicable because Santibañez's affidavit-complaint both narrated the facts and expressly charged the accused, and the information expressly stated it was filed upon the sworn complaint of the offended party.
• Fernandez vs. Lantin, 74 SCRA 338 — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the proposition that the filing in court of an affidavit or sworn statement of the offended party, if it contains all the allegations required of a criminal complaint under Section 5, Rule 110, constitutes sufficient compliance with the law.
• Samilin vs. CFI of Pangasinan, 57 Phil. 298 — Cited for the principle that the requirement of Article 344 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.
• U.S. vs. Gomez, 12 Phil. 279; U.S. vs. Narvasa, 14 Phil. 410; U.S. vs. dela Cruz, 17 Phil. 139; U.S. vs. Castañares, 18 Phil. 210; U.S. vs. Salazar, 19 Phil. 233; Quilatan and Santiago vs. Caruncho, 21 Phil. 399; People vs. Martinez, 76 Phil. 559 — Cited as part of the long line of decisions maintaining strict adherence to the requirement imposed by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.

• 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 party. The Court interpreted this provision in light of its underlying purpose — to protect the aggrieved party's option to seek or forego judicial redress — and held that the affidavit-complaint of Efraim Santibañez, which expressly charged the accused and was attached to the information, satisfied this jurisdictional requirement.
• Section 4, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Reiterates the requirement of Article 344 that the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The Court found compliance with this provision through the offended party's affidavit-complaint.
• Section 5, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Defines the sufficiency of a complaint or information, requiring it to state the name of the defendant, the designation of the offense by statute, the acts or omissions complained of, the name of the offended party, the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place thereof. The Court held that Santibañez's affidavit-complaint contained all these elements and therefore constituted a valid complaint.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Relo, JJ., concurred. Concepcion, Jr., J., and De Castro, J., were on leave.