G.R. No. 6821 - People vs. Cruz

On June 7, 1910, a written and sworn information was filed before the court of the justice of the peace of the pueblo of Pasig by Filemon Andres.
The information charged his wife, Emiliana Cruz, and Ricardo Reyes with the crime of adultery.

After the required preliminary investigation, the justice of the peace found insufficient grounds to continue the proceedings against the accused.
Consequently, on July 12, 1910, an order was issued releasing both Emiliana Cruz and Ricardo Reyes from custody.

On September 26, 1910, a written complaint was subsequently presented by the provincial fiscal, bearing the signature of Filemon Andres, renewing the charge of adultery against the accused.
The complaint alleged that in December 1908, Ricardo Reyes, with full knowledge of Emiliana Cruz’s marital status and the lack of an annulment of her marriage, engaged in sexual relations with her.

Luisa Rojas testified that early in the morning in April 1908, she found the accused and Emiliana Cruz sleeping together at her residence.
Esteban Cruz recounted a separate incident in February 1908, where on the azotea of Emiliana Cruz’s house, inappropriate conduct was observed, though he was reluctant to fully testify due to familial ties.
Juan Reyes testified that between 1 and 2 o’clock in the afternoon on another occasion in April 1908, he again observed the accused and Emiliana Cruz in an intimate situation at her home. Like the previous witness, he was hesitant to testify fully owing to his relationship to the parties.

On January 3, 1911, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a judgment based on the evidence presented during the trial.
The judgment sentenced both Emiliana Cruz and Ricardo Reyes each to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, with an assessment for costs.
The defendants subsequently appealed the judgment.

Despite the initial complaint being signed by Filemon Andres, the fact that the preliminary investigation led to the release of the accused was equivalent to a dismissal of proceedings.
For the cause to be properly resumed in the Court of First Instance, it was necessary for the offended party himself to file a written and sworn information, as required by law.
The complaint presented by the provincial fiscal, merely bearing the signature of Filemon Andres, did not satisfy the legal requirement established by Act No. 1773.

Whether the subsequent complaint filed by the provincial fiscal, despite bearing the signature of the offended party (Filemon Andres), complied with the legal requirement for initiating prosecution in cases involving adultery, as prescribed by Act No. 1773.
Whether the court could properly exercise jurisdiction over a case that had been dismissed at the preliminary stage by the justice of the peace, and subsequently re-initiated by a complaint that did not originate in the prescribed manner.

Whether the crime of adultery, being one that mandates a complaint from the aggrieved or his or her representative, may be prosecuted by the public prosecutor through a complaint duly signed by the offended party.
Whether the formal requirement – that the written information be filed by the offended party or his legitimate representatives – was duly satisfied in this case.