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, RESPONDE…

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:

“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:

“C
O M P L A I N T

“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 x x x

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 sight-seeing 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.

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 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 complaint with the police
[Annex ‘A’, supra]; 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 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 attached as Annexes ‘A’ and ‘B’ x x x.”

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:

“x x x 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 respondents 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, (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Relova, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.

^[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. x x
x “

^[7]
74 SCRA 338, 343, 344.