Doctrine
Only the offended spouse may file an adultery case.
Facts
On December 21, 2022, respondent Jin Chiba (Jin), through his duly authorized representative, Marvin O. Ayende (Marvin), filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City charging petitioner Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba (Aurel) and respondent Michael Llona (Michael) with adultery and grave threats.
After conducting a preliminary investigation, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City, in a Resolution dated February 21, 2023, found probable cause to indict Aurel and Michael for the said offenses. Consequently, on March 6, 2023, separate Informations for adultery and grave threats were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 167.
The trial court subsequently determined that there was probable cause to hold Aurel and Michael for trial and issued arrest warrants against them.
On February 12, 2024, Aurel filed a Motion to Dismiss ex abundanti ad cautelam before the same court. She sought the dismissal of the adultery case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, contending that the complaint could not be validly instituted by a person other than the offended spouse, notwithstanding a special power of attorney. She likewise prayed for the dismissal of the grave threats case on the ground of alleged denial of due process.
The prosecution opposed the motion, asserting that the grounds invoked were baseless and that the motion was merely intended to delay the proceedings.
ISSUE:
Is Jin’s complaint affidavit, which was attached to the complaint-affidavit filed by Marvin and the Information filed by the OCP-Pasay City, 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?
Ruling
No.
The Complaint-Affidavit filed by Marvin does not comply with the Jurisdictional requirements for the filing of an adultery case.
Adultery, being a private offense, cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended spouse cannot institute the criminal prosecution without including both guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor in any case if he or she has consented to or pardoned the offenders.
Further, the Court has consistently maintained strict adherence to the jurisdictional requirement that a complaint for adultery must be filed by the offended spouse. This legal requirement was imposed 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. The law leaves it to the option of the aggrieved spouse to seek judicial redress for the affront committed by the erring spouse.
In this case, the complaint for adultery against Aurel and Michael was not initiated by Jin, the offended spouse. The records reveal that the prosecution for the crime of adultery commenced with a complaint-affidavit filed by Marvin, Jin’s authorized representative. Although Jin later executed his own complaint-affidavit accusing Aurel and Michael of adultery, it was merely attached as an annex to the complaint-affidavit filed by Marvin. Clearly, the jurisdictional requirement for filing an adultery case under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure was not complied with.