Title
People vs. Ilarde
Case
G.R. No. L-58595
Decision Date
Oct 10, 1983
A petition challenging the quashing of an adultery case after the offended spouse's death; SC ruled the spouse's prior complaint and actions sufficed for prosecution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-58595)

Key Dates

• November 3–4, 1980: Alleged commission of adultery and apprehension in flagrante
• November 4, 1980: Sworn complaint filed by Efraim Santibanez with the Integrated National Police
• November 6–7, 1980: Affidavit-complaint executed and filed before the City Fiscal
• January 10, 1981: Holographic will executed, disinheriting Cecile Santibanez for adultery
• February 16, 1981: Death of Efraim Santibanez in the United States
• March 3–4, 1981: City Fiscal issues and files information for adultery in CFI Iloilo, Criminal Case No. 13086
• May 21 & September 14, 1981: Orders quashing the information granted and reconsideration denied
• October 10, 1983: Decision of the Supreme Court

Facts of the Case

Efraim Santibanez legally married Cecile in 1974. Suspicious of his wife’s fidelity based on reports from their son and household staff, he devised a plan to catch her in the act of adultery by removing a glass jalousie from their master bedroom window. On the night of November 3, 1980, Cecile Santibanez and Avelino T. Javellana were observed and photographed engaging in sexual intercourse. Upon learning of the discovery, Santibanez filed a sworn complaint with the police and, days later, an affidavit-complaint before the City Fiscal formally charging his wife and Javellana with adultery.

Procedural History

  1. The City Fiscal conducted a preliminary investigation and, on February 19, 1981, found a prima facie case for adultery.
  2. On March 4, 1981, the Fiscal filed an information in CFI Iloilo, Criminal Case No. 13086.
  3. Private respondents moved to quash the information, arguing that no complaint by the offended spouse had been filed as required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
  4. The trial court granted the motion to quash; the Fiscal’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
  5. The People sought certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the statutory requirement that “the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse” (Article 344, RPC; Section 4, Rule 110, Rules of Court) was complied with.

Applicable Law

• Article 344, Revised Penal Code (adultery and concubinage prosecutable only upon offended spouse’s complaint)
• Section 4, Rule 110, Rules of Court (echoing Article 344)
• Section 5, Rule 110, Rules of Court (elements of a sufficient complaint)
• Presidential Decree No. 77 (governing preliminary investigations)

Analysis

  1. The Supreme Court adheres to the strict requirement of Article 344 but emphasizes its protective spirit: to allow the aggrieved spouse discretion in seeking redress without public scandal.
  2. Efraim Santibanez’s sworn complaint and affidavit-complaint not only narrated the facts of the adultery but also explicitly charged his wife and Javellana, requesting that his affidavit serve as the formal complaint.
  3. Distinguished from People v. Santos, where a mere factual “sala

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.