Case Summary (G.R. No. 222105)
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
June 15, 2010 (incident); February 9, 2012 (Information filed as Criminal Case No. 2747‑N before the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)); March 6, 2012 (MCTC ordered prosecution to submit additional proof); June 5, 2012 (MCTC dismissed the case for lack of probable cause); August 10, 2012 (MCTC denied motion for reconsideration); September 9, 2013 (RTC granted certiorari, reversed MCTC, and reinstated the Information); April 30, 2015 and October 27, 2015 (Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution affirming RTC); December 13, 2023 (Supreme Court decision denying the consolidated petitions).
Applicable Law and Legal Standards
Governing constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered after 1990). Controlling procedural law: Rule 112, Sections 5 and 6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure (judicial determination of probable cause and issuance of warrant of arrest). Doctrinal points: (1) Adultery is a so‑called private crime that may only be initiated by the offended husband; (2) the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause is an executive function to determine whether to file an Information; (3) the judge’s inquiry on probable cause is a separate judicial function and must not require proof sufficient for conviction; (4) a trial court may dismiss only if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause.
Proceedings in the MCTC
The MCTC issued an order on March 6, 2012 directing the prosecution to submit additional supporting evidence within five days to assist the court’s probable‑cause determination. The prosecution did not comply. On June 5, 2012 the MCTC dismissed the case for lack of probable cause and later denied a motion for reconsideration, prompting Peter to file a Rule 65 petition for certiorari in the RTC alleging grave abuse of discretion.
RTC Ruling on Certiorari
The RTC (Branch 4, Kalibo) granted Peter’s petition for certiorari on September 9, 2013, holding that the MCTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case. The RTC emphasized that the OPP’s earlier Resolution finding probable cause could not be disregarded and reiterated that probable cause requires only a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused probably committed it, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC reinstated the Information and directed the MCTC to take cognizance of the case.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision, finding that the MCTC judge improperly demanded evidence (e.g., photographs, proof of kissing or hugging, love letters) that would be necessary to secure a conviction rather than to establish probable cause. The CA agreed that the evidence filed with the OPP—affidavits, witness statements, recorded interviews, and the circumstances of the arrest—was sufficient to support a reasonable belief that adultery had likely occurred.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Principal contested questions included: (1) whether Peter, as private complainant, had the legal personality to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the MCTC’s dismissal without the concurrence of the public prosecutor; and (2) whether the CA gravely erred in affirming the RTC’s finding that the MCTC abused its discretion for requiring proof appropriate only at trial and for disregarding the OPP’s Resolution.
Supreme Court Analysis — Legal Personality of the Private Complainant
The Court held that Peter possessed the legal personality to file a special civil action for certiorari in the RTC to challenge the MCTC’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds and to protect his interest in the civil aspect of the criminal case. The Court distinguished the right to initiate a private‑crime complaint (vested in the offended party) from the authority to prosecute (vested in the State through the prosecutor). Once the complaint is filed, the State, via the public prosecutor, assumes the principal prosecutorial role. Nevertheless, because certiorari is an original, independent remedy directed at jurisdictional errors and not an appeal of the criminal ruling itself, the private complainant may properly institute certiorari in the RTC when no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to safeguard the private complainant’s civil interest.
Supreme Court Analysis — Limits on Private Complainant’s Remedies and Guidelines
The Court reaffirmed that, as a rule, only the public prosecutor may appeal criminal judgments or interlocutory rulings affecting the criminal aspect; the private complainant may appeal only the civil component. Citing and restating the guidelines from the Austria v. AAA line of cases, the Court directed that when a private complainant files an appeal or petition affecting the criminal aspects before the RTC, the RTC must require the provincial or city prosecutor to file a comment within a non‑extendible 30‑day period if resolution of the private complainant’s remedy will necessarily affect the criminal aspect or the right to prosecute. The Court reiterated: (1) the private complainant may file certiorari alleging a specific pecuniary interest; (2) the private complainant lacks standing to challenge criminal aspects without the prosecutor’s conformity; (3) the RTC must solicit the provincial/city prosecutor’s comment within 30 days on petitions that question dismissal, acquittal, or interlocutory orders on grounds like grave abuse; and (4) those guidelines apply prospectively and ensure the State, through its prosecutors, is heard when the criminal interest is implicated.
Supreme Court Analysis — Probable Cause and Judicial Review
The Court explained the delineation of functions: the public prosecutor’s finding of probable cause is executive (for filing the Information); the judge’s determination is judicial (to decide need for custody). Under Section 5, Rule 112, a judge has three discrete o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 222105)
Case Caption and Nature of Case
- Consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed with the Supreme Court: G.R. No. 222105 (Theresa Avelau Isturis-Rebuelta v. Peter P. Rebuelta) and G.R. No. 222143 (Mark Baltazar Mabasa v. Peter P. Rebuelta).
- Subject matter: Review of the Court of Appeals' April 30, 2015 Decision and October 27, 2015 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 08203 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Kalibo, Aklan, that there was probable cause to warrant filing of an Information for adultery against petitioners Theresa Isturis-Rebuelta and Mark Mabasa.
- Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at the CA; final resolution penned by GESMUNDO, C.J., with concurrence by Hernando, Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ.
Factual Antecedents (Raid, Arrests, and Initial Complaint)
- On June 15, 2010 at around 2:00 p.m., Peter Rebuelta (Peter), accompanied by members of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the PNP, entered Room 5 of Seawall Inn in Brgy. Tambak, New Washington, Aklan.
- Inside the room, Peter and the CIDG found Theresa sitting on the bed attending to her 3-year-old son and Mark seated on a chair without a shirt.
- Theresa and Mark were brought first to the PNP New Washington Police Station, then to the CIDG Aklan office in Camp Pastor Martelino, New Buswang, Kalibo. Theresa was later detained at the Kalibo Police Station.
- On the following day, Peter filed a complaint for adultery before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of Aklan; the matter was docketed INV-10F-01407.
- After finding probable cause, the OPP filed an Information on February 9, 2012, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2747-N, with the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of New Washington and Batan.
Proceedings in the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)
- On March 6, 2012, Judge Eva Vita V. Ta-Ay Tejada of the MCTC issued an Order requiring the prosecution to submit additional supporting evidence within five (5) days to aid the court’s determination of probable cause pursuant to Paragraph (a), Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; failure to comply would result in dismissal for lack of probable cause.
- The prosecution did not submit additional evidence despite receipt of the Order.
- On June 5, 2012, the MCTC issued an Order dismissing the case for lack of probable cause and cancelling Theresa’s bail bond which she posted pending judicial determination of probable cause.
- Peter filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the MCTC; it was denied by the MCTC in its August 10, 2012 Order.
Petition for Certiorari to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- Aggrieved, Peter filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC, asserting grave abuse of discretion by the MCTC in dismissing the adultery complaint.
- On September 9, 2013, the RTC (Branch 4, Kalibo, Aklan) granted the Petition for Certiorari, reversing the MCTC’s June 5 and August 10, 2012 Orders, and reinstating the Information (Criminal Case No. 2747-N), directing the MCTC to take cognizance and proceed with the case.
- The RTC’s reasoning emphasized that:
- Judge Tejada gravely abused her discretion in disregarding the OPP’s February 4, 2011 Resolution that found probable cause.
- Probable cause is not a requirement of clear and convincing evidence or absolute certainty, but only evidence showing a possibility that a crime has been committed and enough reason to believe the accused committed it.
- Since adultery is a private crime, the offended party (Peter) is the proper party-in-interest to appeal the MCTC’s orders.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA)
- Petitioners (Theresa and Mark) separately appealed the RTC’s October 21, 2013 Order denying their motions for reconsideration to the CA.
- In its April 30, 2015 Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling, holding that:
- The MCTC gravely abused its discretion when it required evidence such as hugging, kissing, love letters, or photographs to determine probable cause—evidence necessary for conviction but not for establishing probable cause.
- The existing affidavits, transcriptions, recorded interviews, and the circumstances of arrest sufficed to engender a well-founded belief that adultery may have been committed.
- The CA denied petitioners’ motions for reconsideration in its October 27, 2015 Resolution.
Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court
- In G.R. No. 222105 (Theresa):
- Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s finding that the MCTC abused its discretion when it ordered the prosecution to present additional evidence and dismissed the case upon noncompliance.
- Whether the CA erred in failing to rule on whether the private complainant’s Petition for Certiorari without the State’s consent was proper.
- In G.R. No. 222143 (Mark):
- Whether petitioners Theresa and Mark can be charged with adultery based on the Information dated December 13, 2011 by Prosecutor Ronilo Inventado.
- Whether the affidavits and pictures submitted by the private complainant to the OPP were sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Parties’ Contentions Presented to the Supreme Court
- Theresa’s contentions:
- No grave abuse of discretion by Judge Tejada because she personally evaluated the prosecution’s report and supporting documents and found no probable cause.
- Peter, as private complainant, could not validly appeal MCTC orders without the express concurrence of the public prosecutor because prosecution of the filed complaint is under public prosecutor’s control and supervision.
- Mark’s contentions:
- The Information and evidence failed to establish an adulterous relationship; he was merely seated and shirtless because of vomit-soiled clothing, and the prosecution did not present evidence of sexual intercourse.
- Peter’s contentions:
- Probable cause requires only evidence tending to show likelihood of a crime and likelihood