CASE DIGEST

103 People v. Ilarde

Criminal Procedure

Court Supreme Court

Citation G.R. No. L-58595
Date October 10, 1983
Petitioner People of the Philippines
Respondent Hon. Ricardo M. Ilarde, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, CFI of Iloilo, Br. V, Cecile
Santibañez and Avelino T. Javellana
Ponente Escolin, J.
Relevant topic Prosecution of Offenses and Provisional Remedies / B. Institution of action arising
from crime / Criminal aspect / b. Persons prosecuting criminal action; intervention of
offended party
Prepared by Robert Sanders

CASE SUMMARY:
Efraim filed an affidavit-complaint before city fiscal of Iloilo for adultery against his wife Cecile and her lover Avelino.
Therein, he narrated the facts and circumstances, expressly charged the two of adultery, and explicitly asked that
such affidavit be considered as a complaint. During preliminary investigation, Efraim died, but the fiscal proceeded to
file the information before the CFI Iloilo. Private respondents moved to quash the information, saying it was
insufficient since the required complaint wasn’t filed by the offended party. The CFI granted the motion and dismissed
the case. The People appealed to the SC. The SC ruled that Efraim’s affidavit-complaint was sufficient to prosecute
adultery, since it contained all the requisites, and was attached in the information filed by the fiscal. Petition granted,
and respondent judge was directed to proceed with the trial.

FACTS:

● Petition for review on certiorari on the decision of the then CFI of Iloilo Br. V, presided by Judge Ricardo
Ilarde, granting the motion to quash of the Information in a criminal case, People v. Cecile Santibañez and
Atty. Avelino Javellana, for adultery.
● The City Fiscal, based on the sworn complaint filed by Efraim Santibañez, accused Cecile and Atty. Avelino of
adultery. On Nov 3, 1980, Cecille, who was still married to Efraim, deliberately had sex with Avelino, who was
not her husband. Atty. Avelino allegedly knew that Cecille was already married, but proceeded anyway.
● The complaint was filed with the Iloilo Metro Police District the following day for preliminary investigation. It
contained Efraim accusing Atty. Avelino of adultery.
● An affidavit-complaint was sworn and filed by Efraim before the City Fiscal on Nov. 7, wherein he recounted
the antecedents which brought the apprehension in flagrante of private respondents. It showed that:
○ He was married to Cecile, and they were living together in a conjugal home;
○ He thought they were in a loving and dedicated marriage. Efraim financed Cecile’s trip alone to
Washington D.C., and both went to a second honeymoon to Hong Kong;
○ Sometime in Oct. 1980, his son Edmund pulled him aside to tell him that Cecile had been having an
illicit affair with another man. He said the man would sleep over whenever Efraim would stay in
Manila.
○ From this, Efraim decided to catch his wife red-handed. He removed one glass from the jalousies by
their window, and planned to open the curtains to catch the lovers in the act.
○ On Nov. 3, he left for Manila and asked his son to inform him if the plan was a success. At almost
midnight, he was informed by his daughter-in-law that the plan was indeed successful, and that Atty.
Avelino and Cecille were arrested inside the bedroom.
○ Atty. Avelino allegedly knew of Cecile’s marriage. Efraim charged his wife and her lover of
adultery, expressly requesting that the affidavit be considered as formal complaint against them.
● Before the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, Efraim found out he had cancer. He went to the US for
treatment, but not before executing a holographic will. He disinherited Cecilia for affair. He had also filed for
legal separation beforehand.
● After several requests for postponement, the illicit lovers submitted their memorandum to the City Fiscal’s
office. The fiscal found a prima facie case for adultery against them.
● Efraim died in the US, but the fiscal prepared the information in question, then filed the same in the CFI
Iloilo. Private respondents filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the offense charged, as the offended party had not filed the required complaint

1
 pursuant to Art. 344 of RPC and Rule 110 of the Rules of Court (“adultery and concubinage shall not
be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse”).
● Respondent judge Ilarde granted the motion and dismissed the case. The city fiscal moved for
reconsideration, but such was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE HELD
WON the affidavit filed by Efraim was sufficient as a complaint YES

RATIO:
1. A valid complaint has specific requisites. It must state:
a. The name of the defendants;
b. The designation of the offense by the statute;
c. The acts or omission 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.
2. Though strict adherence has been laid down for prosecution, such requirement was imposed in
consideration of the aggrieved party. [Recall: prosecution for rape and adultery, among other crimes,
needs to be initiated by the offended party] The intention was to give the offended party the option to suffer
the outrage in silence than go through the scandal of a public trial. This should be the overriding consideration
in determining whether the requirements of said article have been complied with. The Court should be guided
by the spirit of the law, rather than the letter.
3. Efraim obviously wanted to bring his Cecile and Atty. Avelino to justice. He filed his complaint against
his wife to the police, and against his wife and her lover to the Fiscal’s Office. He explicitly said he was
charging them of adultery, and asked that the affidavit be considered a formal complaint against them. He
even filed for legal separation in the local Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, then disinherited his wife in
his will.
4. The ruling in People v. Santos does not apply. That case ruled that a “salaysay” or sworn statement of the
offended party, which prompted the fiscal to conduct a preliminary investigation and file an information before
court, was not the complaint required by law.
a. The salaysay in Santos did not charge anyone of a crime. It merely narrated how rape was
committed against the victim. On the other hand, Efraim’s affidavit not only narrated the facts and
circumstances, but also charged private respondents of the adultery.
b. In the information filed in Santos, the offended party was not mentioned as an accuser. It was
merely the fiscal who accused Santos with rape (“the undersigned fiscal accuses Engracio Santos
with the crime of rape”). In this case, the fiscal of Iloilo mentioned Efraim as accuser in the
information (“[t]he undersigned city fiscal upon sworn statement originally filed by the offended party
Efraim Santibañez…”).
5. The complaint-affidavit filed by Efraim contained all the required elements. It was even attached to the
Information as an integral part of the latter, and filed with the court. It was held in Fernandez v. Lantin that 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 sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, constitutes sufficient compliance
of the law.
In complaints that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, the Information filed by the fiscal cannot confer jurisdiction
upon the court of origin unless the offended party makes the accusation. However, this error could be
corrected without sustaining the motion to quash and dismissing the case. In a case under Art. 360, pursuant
to sec. 1 (a) of PD No. 77, if the statement of the complainant was sworn before the investigating fiscal, a
copy of said verified statement could be filed with the court to comply with the requirements of prosecution
(under Art. 360) assuming that such statement contained all those required of a complaint under the rules.

RULING:

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.

SEPARATE OPINIONS: