People v.

Ilarde
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-58595. October 10, 1983.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. RICARDO M. ILARDE, in his
capacity as Presiding Judge, CFI of Iloilo, Br. V, CECILE SANTIBAÑEZ and
AVELINO T. JAVELLANA, respondents.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Panfilo B. Enojas for respondents.
SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE; PROSECUTION OF

OFFENSE UPON COMPLAINT OF OFFENDED SPOUSE; RATIONALE. — In a
long line of decisions, this Court has maintained strict adherence to the requirement
by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. 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." Thus, the law leaves it to the option of the aggrieved spouse to
seek judicial redress for the affront committed by the erring Spouse. And this,
should be the overriding consideration in determining the issue of whether or not the
condition precedent prescribed by said Article 334 has been complied with. For
needless to state, this Court should be guided by the spirit, rather than the letter, of
the law.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DESIRE OF AGGRIEVED SPOUSE TO SEEK JUDICIAL
REDRESS EVIDENT IN CASE AT BAR. — In the case a bar, the desire of the
offended party, Efraim Santibanez. to bring his wife and her alleged paramour to
justice is only too evident. Such determination of purpose on his part is amply
demonstrated in the dispatch by which he filed his compliant with the police; the
strong and-unequivocal statement contained in the affidavit filed with the Fiscal's
Office that "I am formally charging my wife Cecile Sorianosos and Atty. Bob
Javallena of the crime of adultery and would request that this affidavit be considered
as a formal compliant against them"; his filing of a compliant for legal separation
against Cecile Sorianosos with the local Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court; and
finally, in disinheriting his wife in his Last Will and Testament dated January 10,
1981.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR DISTINGUISHED FROM PEOPLE vs. SANTOS. —
The decision in People vs. Santos, 101 Phil. 789, to the effect that a "salaysay" or
sworn statement of the offended party, which prompted the fiscal to conduct a
preliminary investigation and then to file an information in court, was not the
compliant required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, is not applicable to the
case at bar. In that case, the "salaysay" executed by complaint was not considered
the complaint contemplated by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code because it was
a mere narration of how the crime of rape was committed against her. However, in
the affidavit compliant submitted by Efraim Santibanez, the latter not only
narrated the facts and circumstances constituting the crime of adultery, but he
also explicitly and categorically charged private respondents with the said
offense. Moreover, in Santos, this Court noted that the information filed by the Rizal
Provincial Fiscal commenced with the statement `the undersigned fiscal accuses
Engracio Santos with the crime of rape'` the offended party not having been
mentioned at all as one of the accusers." In the instant case , however, the
information filed by the city fiscal of Iloilo states that he charges the accused "upon
sworn statement originally filed by the offended party.
4. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; COMPLAINT OR
INFORMATION; COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT FILED BY AGGRIEVED SPOUSE
CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. — The Complaint-
affidavit filed by Santibanez contains all the elements of a valid compliant as "it states
the names of the defendants, the designation of the offense by the statute the acts or
omission complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party,
the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the
offense was committed." What is more, said complaint-affidavit was attached to the
information as an integral part thereof, and duly filed with the court. As held in
Fernandez vs. Lantin (74 SCRA 338, 343, 344), the filing in court of such 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.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; QUASHING OF INFORMATION AN ERROR. — Upon the
premises, the Court cannot but conclude that the adultery charge against private
respondents is being prosecuted "upon complaint filed by the offended party." The
granting of the motion to quash and the resulting dismissal of the case are set aside,
and the respondent judge is directed to proceed with the trial of the case on the
merits.
DECISION
ESCOLIN, J p:
Petition for review on certiorari of the order of the then Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial Court) of Iloilo, Branch V, presided by the respondent Judge Ricardo
M. Ilarde, granting the motion to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 13086,
entitled, "People of the Philippines, plaintiff versus Cecile Santibañez and Avelino T.
Javellana, accused."
The information in Criminal Case No. 13086 was filed on March 4, 1981 by City
Fiscal Ricardo P. Galvez. It reads: Cdpr
"The undersigned City Fiscal upon sworn complaint originally filed by the offended
party Efraim Santibañez, copies of which are thereto attached as Annexes 'A' and 'B'
hereby accused CECILE SANTIBAÑEZ and AVELINO T. JAVELLANA of the crime
of adultery, committed as follows:
"That on or about the 3rd day of November, 1980, in the City of Iloilo, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Court, said accused Cecile Santibañez being
lawfully married to Efraim Santibañez, which marriage at that time has not been
legally dissolved, with deliberate intent, did then and there wilfully, maliciously and
criminally have sexual intercourse with her co-accused Avelino T. Javellana, a man
not her husband and who in turn knowing fully well that his co-accused was then
lawfully married to Efraim Santibañez, did then and there wilfully, maliciously and
criminally have sexual intercourse with her.
"CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
Annex "A" referred to in the information is the sworn complaint for adultery filed
by Efraim Santibañez against herein private respondents, Cecile Santibañez and
Avelino T. Javellana, with the Integrated National Police, Iloilo Metro Police District,
Iloilo City, on November 4, 1980, which complaint was immediately forwarded to the
Office of the City Fiscal for preliminary investigation. Said complaint reads:
"COMPLAINT
"The undersigned accuses ATTY. AVELINO JAVELLANA, a resident of CPU
Compound, Jaro, Iloilo City, and Cecile Santibañez, a resident of Candido
Subdivision, Iloilo City, for the crime of adultery . . .
xxx xxx xxx
(Sgd.) EFRAIM SANTIBAÑEZ
(Signature of complainant).
"SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 4th day of November, 1980 in the
City of Iloilo:
(Sgd.) RICARDO P. GALVEZ
City Fiscal"
Annex "B" of the information is the affidavit-complaint dated November 6, 1980
executed by Efraim Santibañez, sworn to and filed before City Fiscal Galvez on
November 7, 1980, wherein Santibañez recounted in detail the antecedents which
brought about the apprehension in flagrante of private respondents. The same is
quoted as follows:
"I, EFRAIM SANTIBAÑEZ, of age, married, and a resident of Fundidor, Molo, Iloilo
City, after having been duly sworn to according to law depose and say:
"That I am legally married to Cecile Sorianosos in a Civil Marriage solemnized by
Judge Vicente Santos, City Court of Pasay City on March 22, 1974 but subsequently
remarried in a religious ceremony before Rev. Panfilo T. Brasil at the Parish Church
of La Paz, Iloilo City on July 18, 1974, xerox copies of the aforesaid marriage
contracts are hereto attached as Annexes 'A' and 'B', forming integral parts of this
affidavit;
"After our marriage, I built a house for our permanent residence and as our conjugal
home in Fundidor, Molo, Iloilo City and furnished it with all the comforts well within
my means;
"At the start of our marriage, I was led to believe by my wife of her total concern, love
and devotion to me and in turn I lavished her with all the material comfort at my
command and even tried to build up her social status by sending her as a delegate to
the Zonta World Conference at Washington, D.C. last July, 1980 without my
company. As a token of my love and unfailing trust we went sightseeing and on our
second honeymoon to Hongkong only last month.
"Sometime during the last week of October, 1980, while I went on my normal work
routine to Passi Sugar Millsite in Passi, Iloilo, my son Edmund took me aside in
confidence and told me that he has some very delicate matters to take up with me
which may be misinterpreted by me or may be taken by me in a wrong light;
however, he said that the honor and dignity of the family is at stake and I have to
know it whatever be the consequence. After I gave him the go signal, he narrated to
me that my wife Cecile Sorianosos has been unfaithful to me and has been having
illicit relationship with another man. Of course, I was taken aback and stunned so I
asked him for the source of his information. He informed me that our maid Elsa
Barios and our driver Loreto Reales had been aware of the illicit relationship and the
man usually went to my house and even slept there whenever I was in Manila. I got
angry and blamed our maid and the driver for not telling me but Edmund told me that
they were afraid to tell because they were threatened. After I have calmed down, I
commented that if I confront my wife about her illicit relationship, she will surely deny
it. So I thought that the best way was to catch her red-handed in the act of infidelity
so that she could not deny it anymore. I suggested to Edmund to think of a plan so
we can catch my wife red-handed.
"After several days of planning we agreed to put our plan of action in operation on
November 3, 1980 since I will be leaving for Manila in the morning of that day. Our
problem was how to catch my wife in the very act of having sexual intercourse with
her lover considering the fact that our master's room was air-conditioned with all
windows framed by glass jalousies closed and covered by curtains. At first we
thought of breaking down the main door with a sledge hammer so we could take
them by surprise, later we abandoned the idea because of legal complications.
"Finally, I thought of removing a glass of the jalousy so the inside of the bedroom can
be seen from the outside once the curtain can be brushed aside by means of a thin
wire and the persons on bed could be seen clearly since the bed is on the same level
as the opening of the window. After several experiments whenever my wife was out, I
found out that my wife cannot notice the removal of the glass jalousy since our
windows are screened from the inside of our room.
"As pre-arranged, I removed one jalousy glass of the window of our master room so
that the people inside our room could be seen actually from the outside and the
moment my wife and her lover is seen in the act of sexual intercourse.
"Having completed all the plans to effect our plan of operation, I told my wife that I
was leaving in the morning of November 3, 1980 for Manila and actually I took the
plane for Manila on that day. I instructed my son Edmund to inform me immediately
of the result of the plan of action as soon as possible.
"Almost midnight of November 3, 1980, I was informed by my daughter-in-law
Rebecca that the operation was successful and resulted in the arrest of my wife and
Atty. Bob Javellana inside our bedroom.
"I know Atty. Bob Javellana for quite a time and we have been close friends. As a
friend he has come to our house at Molo, Iloilo City oftentimes to discuss matters
about the court case between the Iloilo City Government and St. Therese Memorial
Chapel which is a business which I have given to my wife Cecile. Atty. Javellana
knew that Cecile Sorianosos is my legally married wife.
"When I returned to Iloilo City from Manila on November 4, 1980, I was shown the
photographs taken inside our master bedroom and I am attaching hereto the
photographs which are marked as Annexes "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", "H", "I" and "J".
"That 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" (pp. 4-5, Original Records)
Sometime in January 1981, i.e., before the conclusion of the preliminary investigation
then being conducted by the Fiscal's Office, Efraim Santibañez learned that he was
sick of cancer and decided to leave for the United States for medical treatment.
Before his departure, he executed a holographic will, dated January 10, 1981, a
portion of which provided:
"I do hereby disinherit my second wife Cecilia Sorianosos of any and all inheritance
she is entitled under the law as my wife on the ground that she had given cause for
legal separation by committing acts of adultery with Atty. Bob Javellana in the
evening of November 3, 1980 in my conjugal abode at Candido Subdivision and as a
result of which I charged her and Atty. Bob Javellana for adultery with the Fiscal's
Office and I filed a case of legal separation against her in Civil Case No. SP-11-309
of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in Iloilo City for which act of infidelity, I
can never forgive her." 2
On January 15, 1981, after several requests for postponement, private respondents
submitted their memorandum to the Fiscal's Office; and on February 19, 1981, Fiscal
Galvez issued a resolution finding the existence of a prima facie case for adultery
against private respondents.
On February 26, 1981, Fiscal Galvez was informed by relatives of Efraim Santibañez
that the latter had died in the United States on February 16, 1981. This
notwithstanding, he prepared the information in question on March 3, 1981, and on
the following day, filed the same with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
Private respondents filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the offense charged, as the offended party had
not filed the required complaint pursuant to the provisions of Article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code and Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court to the effect that
"the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse."
Finding merit in the position taken by private respondents, respondent judge granted
the motion and dismissed the case. The city fiscal moved for a reconsideration, but
the same was denied. Hence, the present recourse.
The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not 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."
We rule in the affirmative.
We are aware that in a long line of decisions, 3 this Court has maintained strict
adherence to the requirement imposed by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
cdrep
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." 4 Thus, the law leaves it to the
option of the aggrieved spouse to seek judicial redress for the affront committed by
the erring spouse. And this, to Our mind, should be the overriding consideration in
determining the issue of whether or not the condition precedent prescribed by said
Article 344 has been complied with. For needless to state, this Court should be
guided by the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law.
In the case at bar, the desire of the offended party, Efraim Santibañez, to bring
his wife and his alleged paramour to justice is only too evident. Such
determination of purpose on his part is amply demonstrated in the dispatch by which
he filed his complaint with the police [annex 'A', supra]; the strong and equivocal
statement contained in the affidavit filed with the Fiscal's Office that "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" [Annex 'B' supra]; his filing of a complaint for legal
separation against Cecile Santibañez with the local Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court; and finally, in disinheriting his wife in his Last Will and Testament dated
January 10, 1981.
In quashing the information, respondent judge relied upon Our decision in People vs.
Santos 5 to the effect that a "salaysay" or sworn statement of the offended party,
which prompted the fiscal to conduct a preliminary investigation and then to file an
information in court, was not the complaint required by Article 344 of the Revised
Penal Code.
The ruling in Santos is not applicable to the case at bar. In that case, the "salaysay"
executed by complainant Bansuelo was not considered the complaint
contemplated by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code because it was a mere
narration of how the crime of rape was committed against her. However, in the
affidavit-complaint submitted by Efraim Santibañez, the latter not only narrated the
facts and circumstances constituting the crime of adultery, but he also explicitly and
categorically charged private respondents with the said offense. Thus —
"That 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."
Moreover, in Santos, this Court noted that the information filed by Rizal Provincial
Fiscal Nicanor P. Nicolas "commenced with the statement 'the undersigned
fiscal accuses Engracio Santos with the crime of rape,' the offended party not
having been mentioned at all as one of the accusers." In the instant case,
however, the information filed by the city fiscal of Iloilo reads as follows:
"The undersigned city fiscal upon sworn statement originally filed by the
offended party Efraim Santibañez, xerox copies of which are hereto attach as
Annexes 'A' and 'B' . . ."
Undoubtedly, the complaint-affidavit filed by Santibañez contains all the
elements of a valid complaint, as "it states the names of the defendants, the
designation of the offense by the statute, the acts or omission complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party, the approximate time of the
commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed." 6
What is more, said complaint-affidavit was attached to the information as an
integral part thereof, and duly filed with the court. As held in Fernandez vs.
Lantin, 7 the filing in court of such 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. Thus: Cdpr
". . . in a case where the Fiscal filed an Information charging the accused with 'telling
some people in the neighborhood that said Fausta Bravo (a married woman) was a
paramour of one Sangalang, a man not her husband', and Fausta Bravo did not
subscribe to the complaint, this Court held that the trial court had no jurisdiction over
the case. It ruled that since the accused imputed to Fausta Bravo the commission of
adultery, a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio, the Information filed by the
Fiscal cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court of origin.
"It must be noted, however, that this error could be corrected without sustaining the
motion to quash and dismissing the case. Pursuant to Section 1 of paragraph (a) of
Presidential Decree No. 77, under which the Assistant City Fiscal conducted the
preliminary investigation, the statement of the complainant was sworn to before the
aforesaid Investigating Fiscal. Assuming that the recitals in said sworn statement
contain all those required of a complaint under the rules, a copy of said verified
statement of the complainant should be filed with respondent Court in order to
comply with the requirements of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code; otherwise,
the respondent Fiscal should file with said court a verified complaint of the offended
party."
Upon these premises, We cannot but conclude that the adultery charge against
private respondent is being prosecuted "upon complaint filed by the offended
party."
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted. The orders of the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo, Branch V, in Criminal Case No. 13086, dated May 21 and
September 14, 1981, are hereby set aside, and respondent judge is directed to
proceed with the trial of the case on the merits. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos and Relova, JJ ., concur.
Concepcion, Jr. and De Castro, JJ ., are on leave.
Footnotes
1. p. 1, Original Records.
 2. pp. 92-93, Original Records.
3. U.S. v. Gomez, 12 Phil. 279; U.S. v. Narvas, 14 Phil. 410; U.S. v. dela Cruz, 17
Phil. 139; U.S. v. Castañares, 18 Phil. 210; U.S. v. Salazar, 19 Phil. 233; Quilatan
and Santiago v. Caruncho, 21 Phil. 399; People v. Martinez, 76 Phil. 559.
4. Samilin vs. CFI of Pangasinan, 57 Phil. 298, 304.
5. 101 Phil. 798.
6. "SEC. 5. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A complaint or information is
sufficient if it states the name of the defendant; the designation of the offense by the
statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of
the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the
place wherein the offense was committed . . ."
7. 74 SCRA 338, 343, 344.

C o p y r i g h t 1 9 9 4 - 1 9 9 9 C D T e c h n o l o g i e s A s i a, I n c.