People v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Filemon Andres filed a sworn information charging his wife, Emiliana Cruz, and Ricardo Reyes with adultery. The justice of the peace, after preliminary investigation, ordered the release of the accused due to lack of grounds. Subsequently, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint, signed by Filemon Andres, again charging them with adultery for acts committed in December 1908. Evidence from three witnesses indicated that Emiliana Cruz and Ricardo Reyes were seen together on different occasions in 1908, including sleeping together in various locations. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance rendered a judgment sentencing both defendants to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional. The defendants appealed this judgment. The Petition: The defendants appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction to try the crime of adultery when the complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal, bearing the offended party's signature, following a dismissal of preliminary proceedings by a justice of the peace.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the case and declared all proceedings null and void. The costs were assessed de oficio.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Court of First Instance failed to acquire jurisdiction over the crime of adultery due to non-compliance with Act No. 1773. Section 1 of Act No. 1773 explicitly provides a special exception to the general rule that public crimes are prosecuted by the public prosecutor, mandating that offenses such as adulterio, estupro, or injuria must be instituted upon the complaint of the aggrieved person or his/her legitimate representatives. This specific procedural requirement is deemed indispensable for the court to acquire jurisdiction over both the persons of the accused and the subject matter of the action. In the present case, while the offended party, Filemon Andres, initially filed a complaint with the justice of the peace, that official ordered the release of the accused, which was equivalent to a dismissal of the preliminary proceedings. For the cause to be properly initiated again in the Court of First Instance, it was absolutely necessary for the written information to be presented by the offended party himself. The mere act of affixing Filemon Andres' signature to a complaint filed by the provincial fiscal did not satisfy the strict jurisdictional requirements of Act No. 1773. The Court referenced U. S. vs. Narvas, 14 Phil. Rep., 410 to underscore that such a defect in the institution of the complaint prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction to try the charge for adultery, rendering all subsequent proceedings null and void.
Main Doctrine
A prosecution for adultery under Act No. 1773 cannot be instituted by the provincial fiscal if the preliminary investigation resulted in the release of the accused due to insufficient grounds; a new complaint must be filed by the offended party himself for the court to acquire jurisdiction.