The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday dismissed an adultery case, reiterating that only the offended spouse may initiate the filing of such a complaint, as adultery and concubinage are classified as private crimes under Philippine law.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., the SC Second Division reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which had ordered the reinstatement of the adultery case against Aurel and Michael.
The case stemmed from a complaint for adultery and grave threats filed by Jin, the husband of Aurel, through a representative.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) initially dismissed the adultery charge, ruling that the complaint was improperly filed because it was not personally initiated by the offended spouse.
However, the RTC overturned the MeTC ruling, holding that the filing complied with legal requirements since Jin’s complaint-affidavit was attached to the complaint submitted by his representative.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
Citing Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court emphasized that adultery and concubinage may be prosecuted only upon a complaint filed personally by the offended spouse.
The Court stressed that this requirement is mandatory and cannot be satisfied by a complaint filed through a representative.
The SC explained that the law treats adultery as a private crime “out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial.” As such, the decision to bring the matter to court rests solely with the offended spouse.
In this case, while Jin submitted his own complaint-affidavit, it was merely attached as an annex to the complaint filed by his representative.
The Court ruled that this did not constitute a valid complaint under the law.
As a result, the SC held that no proper complaint for adultery was filed and ordered the dismissal of the case.
In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen called for the strict application of the law in prosecuting private crimes.
He underscored that marital relationships, including issues of infidelity, are essentially private matters in which the State should intervene only when the law’s requirements are strictly met.