Case Summary (G.R. No. 80116)
Factual Background
– Marriage solemnized in Germany on September 7, 1979; couple resided in Malate, Manila; one daughter born April 20, 1980.
– De facto separation beginning April 1982 with mutual recriminations.
– Private respondent filed for divorce in Germany (Schöneberg Local Court) January 1983; granted absolute divorce January 15, 1986, on ground of failure of marriage. Custody of the child awarded to petitioner.
– Petitioner concurrently filed legal-separation, support, and property-separation action in RTC Manila, Branch XXXII (Civil Case No. 83-15866).
Criminal Complaints for Adultery
– On June 27, 1986, more than five months after the German divorce, private respondent lodged two sworn complaints for adultery against petitioner, alleging affairs with William Chia (since 1982) and Jesus Chua (1983).
– Assistant Fiscal recommended dismissal for insufficiency of evidence; City Fiscal overruled and directed filing of charges (Resolution dated January 8, 1986).
– Adultery charges raffled to two branches:
• Criminal Case No. 87-52435 (Pilapil & Chia) – Branch XXVI.
• Criminal Case No. 87-52434 (Pilapil & Chua) – Branch XXV.
Trial Court Proceedings and Secretary of Justice Intervention
– March 14, 1987: Petitioner petitioned Secretary of Justice to set aside fiscal’s resolution and dismiss complaints. Co-accused Chua filed a similar petition.
– Secretary of Justice directed City Fiscal to defer proceedings and elevate records for review.
– Petitioner moved in both criminal cases to defer arraignment and suspend proceedings; Branch XXV granted suspension; Branch XXVI merely reset arraignment to April 6, 1987.
– Petitioner filed motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction; RTC Branch XXVI denied motion on September 8, 1987, ordered arraignment. Petitioner’s refusal resulted in contempt findings.
– October 27, 1987: Petitioner filed certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking annulment of the RTC order. Temporary restraining order issued October 21, 1987.
– March 23, 1988: Secretary of Justice resolved in petitioner’s favor, directing City Fiscal to move for dismissal.
Legal Issue: Jurisdictional Requirement for Private Crimes
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try adultery complaints filed by a complainant who, at the time of filing, was no longer married to the accused.
Analysis on Offended-Spouse Requirement
– Article 344, RPC, classifies adultery as a private offense prosecutable only upon a sworn written complaint by the offended spouse.
– The sworn complaint is a jurisdictional prerequisite: without it, the court lacks authority to try the case.
– Only the offended spouse may institute prosecution; no provision allows third parties or the State to proceed de oficio or on behalf of a divorced spouse.
– Jurisdiction hinges on the complainant’s status at the time of filing: the complainant must still be married to the accused when the complaint is lodged.
– U.S. precedents (e.g., State v. Loftus) interpret similar statutes to require that the innocent spouse retain spousal status at commencement of prose
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 80116)
Facts
- On September 7, 1979, Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil (Filipino) and Erich Ekkehard Geiling (German) were validly married in Friedensweiler, Germany.
- The couple resided in Malate, Manila, where their daughter, Isabella Pilapil Geiling, was born on April 20, 1980.
- Marital discord arose; the spouses separated de facto in April 1982.
- In January 1983, Geiling filed for divorce in the Schöneberg Local Court (Germany), alleging failure of marriage and living apart since April 1982.
- Pilapil filed for legal separation, support, and property partition before Manila RTC Branch XXXII on January 23, 1983 (Civil Case No. 83-15866), still pending.
- On January 15, 1986, the German court promulgated an absolute divorce decree on the ground of failure of marriage; custody of the child was awarded to Pilapil.
Initiation of Criminal Proceedings
- On June 27, 1986, Geiling filed two adultery complaints before the Manila City Fiscal, accusing Pilapil of affairs with William Chia (since 1982) and James Chua (in 1983).
- Assistant Fiscal de los Reyes recommended dismissal for insufficiency of evidence.
- The City Fiscal, upon review, approved the complaints by resolution dated January 8, 1986, and filed them as Criminal Case Nos. 87-52435 (Pilapil & Chia, Branch XXVI) and 87-52434 (Pilapil & Chua, Branch XXV).
Preliminary Motions and Department of Justice Intervention
- March 14, 1987: Pilapil petitioned the Secretary of Justice to set aside the fiscal’s resolution and dismiss the charges.
- A similar petition was filed by James Chua.
- The Secretary of Justice, through the Chief State Prosecutor, directed the City Fiscal to defer proceedings if the accused were not yet arraigned and to forward the records for review.
- Pilapil moved in both cases to defer arraignment and suspend proceedings.
- Branch XXV (Judge Cruz) suspended proceedings in No. 87-52434; Branch XXVI (Judge Somera) reset the arraignment in No