Probable cause for adultery (3)

Probable cause for adultery (3) | Daily Tribune

As painstakingly enumerated by the court a quo, pieces of evidence submitted by the prosecution tend to show that respondents-appellants had been carrying out an illicit relationship for quite some time.

Petitioner–appellee then sought the help of the police in conducting surveillance on respondents-appellants, which ultimately led to their arrest inside a room at the Seawall Inn in Barangay Tambak, New Washington, Aklan. These circumstances are enough to make a reasonable inference that respondents-appellants could not have gone inside the room for wholesome activities. As aptly observed by the court a quo, even the presence of respondent-appellant Theresa Isturis-Rebuelta’s son with petitioner-appellee could not place a color of moral justification for her to check into a hotel room with a man other than her husband.

When Judge Tejada based the dismissal of the adultery case on the absence of evidence, such as photos or other articles, to positively show the intimacy of petitioners, she went beyond the standards of probable cause. To reiterate, probable cause only demands reasonable belief or probability that a crime has been committed. Evidence tending to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt is proper in a trial and not in the judicial determination of probable cause under Section 5 of Rule 112 of the Rules.

Furthermore, the RTC had properly pointed out that in addition to the affidavits and other supporting evidence submitted by the prosecution, Judge Tejada had also disregarded the OPP’s resolution of 4 February 2011.

It must be stressed at this instance that although judges are permitted to dismiss cases under Section 5 of Rule 112, they may only do so after considering all the available evidence, including the resolution of the public prosecutor. Clearly, Judge Tejada gravely abused her discretion when she dismissed the adultery case against the petitioners.

What is the takeaway here? In the determination of probable cause, and I emphasize not finding guilt, evidence of actual sexual act is not necessary. Rather, circumstantial evidence which when taken together, will reasonably point to an illicit sexual relationship, will be enough cause for the court to proceed and try the case and determine ultimately the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The facts and salient portion of the decision are from Theresa Avelau Itsuris-Rebuelta v. Peter Rebuelta (G.R. 222105, 13 December 2023).