Title
People vs. Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 6821
Decision Date
Oct 19, 1911
A 1910 adultery case was dismissed as the trial court lacked jurisdiction; prosecution must be initiated by the aggrieved party, not the fiscal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 108027)

Summary of Proceedings

On June 7, 1910, Filemon Andres filed a sworn information with the Justice of the Peace Court in Pasig, charging his wife Emiliana Cruz and Ricardo Reyes with the crime of adultery. After a preliminary investigation, the Justice of the Peace concluded there was insufficient evidence to proceed and ordered the release of the accused on July 12, 1910. However, on September 26, 1910, a new complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal against the same defendants for the same crime, based on the initial allegations that Reyes engaged in an adulterous relationship with Cruz, who was still married to Andres.

Evidence Presented

The trial included testimonies from three witnesses—Luisa Rojas, Esteban Cruz, and Juan Reyes—who each provided accounts of having caught the defendants in compromising situations on multiple occasions. Despite the allegations and witness accounts, the Justice of the Peace's earlier dismissal had significant implications for the subsequent legal actions.

Judgment of the Court

On January 3 of the following year, the Court rendered a judgment sentencing both defendants to two years four months and one day of prision correccional and ordered them to pay the costs of the proceedings. The defendants subsequently appealed this judgment.

Legal Basis for Appeal

The core issue in the appeal revolved around the legality of the prosecution following the Justice of the Peace's dismissal of the original complaint. The court identified that, under Section 1 of Act No. 1773, certain crimes, including adultery, must be prosecuted only upon the complaint of the aggrieved person or legitimate representatives. It emphasized that the initial dismissal of the complaint by the Justice of the Peace effectively terminated the proceedings, and therefore, a new valid complaint should have been filed by the offended party, Filemon Andres, rather than the provincial fiscal.

Jurisdictional Implications

According to the General Orders No. 58 and relevant provisions of Act No. 1773, for the court to gain jurisdiction over the case, the complaint must originate from the offended party himself or his legal representatives. The mere signature of Andres on the provincial f

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.