G.R. No. 260973 - Togado vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 260973)

Factual Background

Ramon testified that he married Rubirosa on August 19, 1991 and that he was frequently abroad working as a 3rd engineer-seaman on a Japanese ship. He stated that Rubirosa ran a karinderya on Leon Llido Street in General Santos City and introduced Valencia to him as a customer. Over time, Ramon discovered that his wife and Valencia were in a relationship. He related that when he called home, his mother answered the phone and told him there was something wrong with the family and that he had to go home.

In August 2002, Ramon returned to General Santos City to investigate and verify what was happening. Upon his arrival, he discovered that his family had moved from their house on Leon Llido Street, Countryside Subdivision, General Santos City to Summerlight Subdivision in Polomolok, South Cotabato. Ramon further learned from his daughter, Monaby, that Rubirosa was living in the same house with Valencia. Ramon testified that Rubirosa became uneasy when he and Valencia were together and that, when confronted, she cried and admitted that she was living with Valencia as they had a relationship. Ramon stated that Rubirosa eventually left him and his family and that he thereafter no longer knew her whereabouts.

Monaby, who identified Valencia in open court, testified that Rubirosa and Valencia were constantly together and were “lovey dovey,” hugging and kissing. She stated that when she was eight years old, the family lived at Countryside Subdivision, and she observed Valencia on the second floor. She testified that an unlocked door allowed her to go into an illuminated room where she saw Rubirosa and Valencia together in bed, hugging and kissing. According to Monaby, Rubirosa noticed her, became angry, and shooed her away. Monaby explained that she kept quiet out of fear.

Monaby also testified that even after the family moved to Summerlight Subdivision, Rubirosa and Valencia continued to hug and kiss, and she further stated that she saw them naked in the bedroom. She stated that when she went to retrieve her brother’s clothes, she saw Rubirosa on top of Valencia and left due to shock and fear.

Defense Position and Trial Testimony

Valencia testified that he was a supervisor at Ace Foods, Inc. and that the office was a block away from Ramon’s karinderya. He admitted knowing Rubirosa because he frequented the karinderya. Valencia denied that he had any sexual relations with Rubirosa.

MTCC Proceedings and Conviction

By Decision dated January 18, 2016, the MTCC convicted Valencia of adultery and imposed prision correccional in its medium period, corresponding to imprisonment for two years, four months, and one day to four years and two months. The MTCC held that the prosecution established the elements beyond reasonable doubt. It found Monaby’s testimony competent and straightforward and noted that Monaby attested that Rubirosa and Valencia frequently hugged and kissed and that Valencia was always in their house at Countryside Subdivision. The MTCC also found that Valencia offered no explanation for why he was found in Rubirosa’s house, despite his claim that he was not her husband.

The MTCC ruled that strong circumstantial evidence and corroborative evidence were sufficient to sustain a conviction for adultery. It also refrained from discussing alleged acts committed at Summerlight Subdivision, Polomolok, South Cotabato, on the ground that the place was beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The MTCC, however, did not consider Valencia’s claim that Ramon had pardoned Rubirosa, and it rejected Valencia’s view that physical sexual acts were necessary for conviction, emphasizing that strong circumstantial evidence could suffice. Valencia’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Resolution dated November 16, 2016.

RTC Review

Valencia appealed, and by Decision dated November 24, 2017, the RTC affirmed the conviction. On Valencia’s claim of pardon, the RTC found that although Ramon slept with Rubirosa in the same house for six or seven days, Ramon did not have sexual relations with her.

The RTC held that the marriage between Ramon and Rubirosa was established, and that Valencia knew of Rubirosa’s marriage. With respect to the element of sexual intercourse, the RTC ruled that strong circumstantial evidence had been adduced to prove it. Valencia’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Order dated July 20, 2018.

Court of Appeals Dismissal of Valencia’s Appeal

Valencia then appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 01715. By Resolution dated October 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal due to multiple procedural defects, including non-payment and defects in docket and legal fees, issues concerning the DBP Manager’s Check, failure to furnish the OSG a copy of the petition, deficiencies in the written explanation for mail filing and service, failure to show competent evidence of identity for the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and failure to append material documents referred to in the petition.

Valencia’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Resolution dated January 15, 2019, with the Court of Appeals holding that Valencia did not correct the procedural errors and that a bare invocation of the “interest of substantial justice” was not a warrant to suspend procedural rules.

Valencia’s Petition Before the Supreme Court

Valencia sought reversal and acquittal. He reiterated that he should benefit from Ramon’s alleged pardon of Rubirosa, asserting that adultery cannot be prosecuted once the husband pardons either of the adulterers. He claimed Ramon’s alleged pardon was shown by Ramon embracing Rubirosa and by Ramon living with Rubirosa in the Summerlight Subdivision house after returning to the Philippines.

Valencia also challenged Monaby’s credibility and the probative weight of her testimony, asserting that Monaby was doing her father a favor, that her recall was inconsistent with human experience because she remembered details of an incident when she was eight years old despite having testified at age eighteen, and that Monaby did not actually see Valencia and Rubirosa having sexual intercourse. Valencia further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of adultery beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, he contended that the Court of Appeals should have relaxed the procedural rules because of alleged subsequent and substantial compliance.

In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General argued that the dismissal was correct and that relaxation of procedural rules applied only in proper cases under justifiable circumstances, which Valencia allegedly did not show.

Supreme Court’s Treatment of the Procedural Issue

The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the appeal solely on procedural grounds. It cited Rule 42, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which provides that failure to comply with requirements concerning docket and lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service, and the contents and documents accompanying the petition shall be sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court acknowledged that Valencia showed the Court of Appeals should have deemed the docket fees paid based on a certification, but it held that the other procedural infirmities remained unexplained and unrectified.

The Court rejected the argument that Valencia’s perfunctory invocation of the “interest of justice” could overcome his repeated noncompliance. It invoked D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. v. City of Paranaque, emphasizing that procedural rules are required to be followed except for the most persuasive reasons when relaxation is warranted. The Court further stressed that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Section 6 and its framework is narrowly confined to specific grounds involving substantive questions or grave departures from the accepted course of judicial proceedings. Finding no such grounds shown, the Court held there was no special reason to exercise its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. It characterized the petition as a mere reiteration of arguments already decided by the MTCC and RTC, which the Court of Appeals did not consider due to Valencia’s procedural lapses. The Court therefore denied the petition outright.

Supreme Court’s Substantive Ruling on Adultery

Even assuming review, the Court found no reversible error in the conviction for adultery. It held that the marriage between Ramon and Rubirosa was established by the presentation of their marriage contract showing their marriage on August 19, 1991. It also relied on Valencia’s own admission that he knew Ramon and Rubirosa because he frequented the karinderya where he met Ramon and that the karinderya was the only one within the vicinity of Valencia’s office.

On the element of sexual intercourse, the Court reiterated that proof of sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man not her husband may be established by circumstantial evidence. Citing United States v. Feliciano, the Court explained that because of the nature of adultery, direct evidence is often unavailable. It held that strong circumstantial and corroborative evidence may suffice where the circumstances lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man to conclude that the act occurred.

Applying those principles, the Court considered Ramon’s testimony that he was away working abroad and returned home after being cautioned that something was going on with his family and discovering the family’s move. It considered Rubirosa’s admission to Ramon of her relationship with Valencia. It also considered Monaby’s testimony that Rubirosa and Valencia hugged and kissed, slep

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 260973)

Michael G. Valencia filed a petition assailing the Court of Appeals dispositions that affirmed his conviction for adultery and denied his motion for reconsideration.
The assailed Court of Appeals rulings were a Resolution dated October 10, 2018 affirming the conviction, and a Resolution dated January 15, 2019 denying reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals had dismissed Valencia’s appeal from the RTC because of multiple procedural defects in the petition for review.
Valencia sought anew an acquittal, insisting that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of adultery beyond reasonable doubt and that procedural rules should have been relaxed in the interest of justice.
The Court ultimately dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals resolutions, with SAJ Leonen dissenting and voting to grant the petition.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Valencia acted as the petitioner seeking review of the Court of Appeals rulings.
The People of the Philippines acted as the respondent defending the conviction.
Valencia was initially charged with adultery in Criminal Case No. 44965-03, with Rubirosa M. Ciocon as co-accused, while Rubirosa remained at large.
Valencia pleaded not guilty on arraignment.
The Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) convicted Valencia and imposed prision correccional in its medium period.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC conviction.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Valencia’s appeal due to procedural defects under Rule 42.
The petition before the Court reiterated issues already considered by the MTCC and RTC but were not reviewed on the merits by the Court of Appeals due to Valencia’s procedural lapses.

Key Factual Allegations

The information charged that on or about December 2001, and within the jurisdiction of the trial court, Rubirosa, being united in wedlock with Ramon Chito A. Ciocon, willfully and unlawfully had sexual intercourse with Michael [A.] Valencia, who was not her husband, knowing her to be married.
The complaint alleged the act occurred in General Santos City.
Ramon testified that he married Rubirosa on August 19, 1991 and that he was frequently out of the country as a seaman.
Ramon stated that he later discovered a relationship between Rubirosa and Valencia and that he returned in August 2002 to investigate.
Ramon recounted that after his return, he found that his family moved from a house in General Santos City to another house, and that his daughter Monaby told him that Rubirosa lived with Valencia.
Ramon testified that Rubirosa admitted the relationship, loved Valencia, and left Ramon and his family, after which Ramon no longer knew her whereabouts.
Monaby, Ramon’s daughter, identified Valencia in court and testified that she saw Rubirosa and Valencia hugging and kissing, and at times in bed while covered by a blanket.
Monaby testified that she saw Rubirosa and Valencia together in bed when she was 8 years old, after opening an unlocked door.
Monaby testified that she later saw Rubirosa and Valencia naked in the bedroom and that Rubirosa was on top of Valencia when she retrieved her brother’s clothes.
Valencia testified that he was a supervisor at Ace Foods, Inc., that he frequented Ramon’s karinderya, and that he denied having sexual relations with Rubirosa.

Trial Court Findings

The MTCC found Valencia guilty of adultery under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.
The MTCC held that all elements of adultery were established, relying significantly on Monaby’s testimony as credible and straightforward.
The MTCC found that Monaby described Valencia’s frequent presence in Rubirosa’s house and repeated affectionate conduct indicative of an intimate relationship.
The MTCC noted Valencia’s failure to explain why he was found in Rubirosa’s house although he was not her husband.
The MTCC concluded that strong circumstantial evidence and corroborative evidence were sufficient to sustain a conviction for adultery.
The MTCC refrained from discussing acts allegedly committed at Summerlight Subdivision, Polomolok, South Cotabato because that place was beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
The MTCC denied Valencia’s motion for reconsideration and rejected the claim of pardon, reasoning that it did not consider Valencia’s contention because it was not established in the manner claimed.
The MTCC further ruled that proof of the physical sexual act was not necessary when strong circumstantial evidence established the offense.

RTC and Appellate Proceedings

The RTC affirmed the MTCC conviction.
The RTC found that Ramon and Rubirosa’s marriage was established and that Valencia knew of Rubirosa’s married status.
The RTC held that strong circumstantial evidence proved the sexual intercourse element.
On Valencia’s alleged pardon theory, the RTC found that Ramon slept with Rubirosa in the same house for six or seven days but found that Ramon did not have sexual relations with her.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Valencia’s appeal due to procedural defects, including non-payment of docket and legal fees, issues with the DBP manager’s check, failure to furnish the OSG with copies, defects in the petition’s filing by mail and explanation of service, defects in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and failure to append material documents such as the judicial affidavit and the MTCC decision.
The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration, holding that Valencia did not correct the procedural errors and that “the interest of substantial justice” did not automatically justify suspension of procedural rules.
The Court of Appeals treated Valencia’s appeal as fatally defective under Rule 42 because the procedural requirements were not met.

Issues Raised

The principal procedural issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal