Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > February 1912 Decisions > G.R. No. 7516 February 1, 1912 - ROMANA QUILATAN, ET AL.vs. EMILIANO CARUNCHO

021 Phil 399:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 7516. February 1, 1912. ]

ROMANA QUILATAN and SIMON SANTIAGO, Petitioners, v. EMILIANO CARUNCHO, provincial jailer of Rizal, Respondent.

Silvestre Apacible, for Petitioners.

Emiliano Caruncho, on his own behalf.

SYLLABUS


1. ADULTERY; COMPLAINT BY THE OFFENDED PARTY; FINALITY OF DISMISSAL. BY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. — When, in a prosecution for adultery upon a complaint by the husband, the justice of the peace, after a preliminary investigation, dismisses the complaint for lack of reasonable cause to sustain the charges, the case is definitely terminated and can only be reopened upon a new complaint by the offended party.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NEW COMPLAINT BY FISCAL UPON HIS OWN RESPONSIBILITY; LACK OF AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION; HABEAS CORPUS. — After such a dismissal by the justice of the peace, the fiscal has no authority to file a new complaint upon his own responsibility and to institute a new prosecution in the Court of First Instance. The filing of such a complaint or information gives the court no jurisdiction over either the parties or the subject matter of the action, and, if the accused is held by virtue of such complaint, he is entitled to be discharged on habeas corpus.

3. DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROSECUTIONS FOR INJURIA AND ADULTERY OR SEDUCTION; ACT No. 1773. — Act No. 1773 makes a distinction between prosecutions for injuria and adultery or seduction. When a public official or employee is insulted in the performance of his duties and fails to prosecute, it may still be necessary, as a matter of public policy, that the affair should be judicially investigated, and therefore authority is conferred upon the prosecuting officer to institute proceedings. This, however, is not true of adultery or seduction, even though the offended party be a public official or employee, in which case it is still necessary that the complaint be made by the offended party, or by one of the representatives of such party enumerated in section 1 of said Act. (U. S. v. Gomez, 12 Phil. Rep., 279; U. S. v. Narvas, 14 Phil. Rep., 410; U. S. v. De la Cruz, 17 Phil Rep., 139; U. S. v. Castaliares, 18 Phil. Rep., 210; U. S. v. Salazar, 19 Phil. Rep., 233.)


D E C I S I O N


TRENT, J. :


Some time prior to the month of February, 1911, there was presented in the justice of the peace court of the municipality of Las Piñas, Province of Rizal, a criminal complaint charging Romana Quilatan and Simon Santiago with the crime of adultery. The justice of the peace held a preliminary investigation as required by law, and after considering the testimony presented, dismissed the complaint and released the two accused. Subsequently thereto and on the 18th of February, 1911, the provincial fiscal examined the record made in that preliminary investigation by the justice of the peace and reached the conclusion that there was sufficient proof to bring the accused parties to trial. Whereupon he filed an information in the Court of First Instance, signed by himself as prosecuting officer, charging the said Romana Quilatan and Simon Santiago with the crime of adultery. Upon the filing of this information, the judge of the Court of First Instance issued an order for the arrest of the accused parties on the 21st of February. Pursuant to the order thus issued, the parties were arrested on October 4, 1911, and confined in the provincial jail of that province. These accused parties, believing their confinement to be illegal, caused to be filed in this court on the 27th of November, 1911, an application for a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of determining the legality of their confinement.

The record fails to disclose whether or not Silvino Vitales, husband of the petitioner Romana Quilatan, is now or was at any time a public official or employee.

The question whether or not the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to order the arrest and confinement of the petitioners upon the information of the fiscal is squarely before us. If it had no such jurisdiction, the petitioners are illegally deprived of their liberty and are entitled to be released upon habeas corpus.

The first section of Act No. 1773 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 1. Hereafter the crimes of adulterio, estupro, rapto, violacion, calumnia, and injuria, as defined by the Penal Code of the Philippine Islands, shall be deemed to be public crimes and shall be prosecuted in the same manner as are all other crimes defined by said Penal Code or by the Acts of the Philippine Commission: Provided, however, That no prosecution for the crimes of adulterio, estupro, or injuria committed against persons other than public officials or employees shall be instituted except upon the complaint of the aggrieved person or of the parents, grand- parents, or guardian of such person."cralaw virtua1aw library

It can not be determined from the word "committed," as used in the above section, whether it is singular or plural, as it is spelled the same in both forms. This past participle might refer to all three of the crimes or just the latter only. Grammatically speaking, this can not be definitively and with certainty determined. In the Spanish text, it is used in the plural form (cometidos).

To determine the question whether or not the crimes of adultery and seduction, when committed against public officers and employees can be instituted and carried forward to a final determination upon the information of the provincial fiscal alone, we must look to the intent of the Legislature.

Prior to the passage of Act No. 1773 the crimes of adultery and seduction were purely private offenses and could not be prosecuted except, for the first crime, upon the complaint of the offended husband, and for the second, upon the complaint of the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian. The prosecuting officer had no authority to institute the proceedings in either one of these cases, while, on the other hand, it was not necessary in every instance that there should be a complaint filed by the injured party before a person could be prosecuted for the crime of injuria. In other words, there were two classes of insults. Those directed against private parties which could not be prosecuted de oficio or on the initiative and through the public prosecutor, and those against the authorities, public officials, or agents of the authorities which were real public crimes and which could be prosecuted by the prosecuting officer the same as other public offenses.

There existed sound reasons of public policy which forbade the prosecution of persons charged with the crimes of adultery and seduction except upon the complaint of the aggrieved person or of the parents, grandparents, or guardian of such person. There also existed the same reason which prohibited the institution of criminal proceedings against a person charged with insults except upon the complaint of the aggrieved person when such person was not one of the excepted classes. The Philippine Commission intended that these underlying principles of the Penal Code should remain in force. By Act No. 1773 these offenses were made public crimes and the control of the prosecution of the same was taken out of the hands of the offended parties when the proceedings were once instituted. The Commission realized that when public officials or employees well attacked, the Government was, to some extent, interested, and found it necessary to authorize its prosecuting officers to go forward upon their own initiative in cases of injuria without being compelled to await the filing of a complaint by the offended party. And again, if a public official or employee is insulted when he is in the performance of his duty and he fails to come forward with the proper complaint, it might be necessary, in certain cases, to have the whole affair judicially investigated for the benefit of the service. In order to do this, it was thought advisable to confer authority upon the prosecuting officer to institute criminal proceedings. This is not true, however, in reference to the crimes of adultery and seduction, even though the offended parties be public officials or employees. The nature and character of the crimes are distinctly different. In the first class (adultery and seduction) the Government has no special interest, while in the second (injuria), the Government is interested to the extent that one of its officials or employees is involved. So it is clear that criminal proceedings can not be instituted against persons charged with the crimes of adultery and seduction, although the offended parties may be public officials or employees, except upon the complaint of the offended party or (in the case of seduction) her parents, grandparents, or guardian. While, on the other hand, the prosecuting officer can institute, upon his own initiative, a criminal action against a person charged with insults when the offended party is a public official or employee and in the performance of his duty when such insults were uttered.

The word "committed" as used in the first section of Act No. 1773 is singular in form, and the same word in the Spanish text should be changed accordingly.

In the case at bar the criminal proceedings were instituted against the petitioner in the court of the justice of the peace upon a complaint of the offended husband. He had a perfect right to commence that action. In fact, he was the only one who could do so. The justice of the peace, after making a preliminary investigation, found that there did not exist reasonable cause to believe that an offense had been committed, and that the accused parties were guilty thereof. He thereupon dismissed the complaint and discharged the defendants. This definitively and finally terminated that case. The offended party could have presented another complaint for the same offense, charging the defendants with the same crime, if he had so desired. He having failed to do this, the case, as we have said, was terminated as far as the whole world was concerned. The fiscal was without authority to institute in the Court of First Instance a new proceeding by filing an information. The filing of this information gave the court no jurisdiction whatever over the persons of the petitioners and the subject matter of the action. In order to give the court jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners and the subject matter of the action, it was necessary that the complaint defined by section 4 of General Orders, No. 58, be made and executed in writing by the offended party personally; such jurisdiction could be acquired in no other way. (U. S. v. Gomez, 12 Phil. Rep., 279; U. S. v. Narvas, 14 Phil. Rep., 410; U. S. v. De la Cruz, 17 Phil. Rep., 139; U. S. v. Castañares, 18 Phil. Rep., 210; U. S. v. Salazar, 19 Phil. Rep., 233.)

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are illegally deprived of their liberty, and it is therefore ordered that they be released from confinement forthwith.

Costs de oficio.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 7516 February 1, 1912 - ROMANA QUILATAN, ET AL.vs. EMILIANO CARUNCHO

    021 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. 6539 February 2, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORINO DE LOS SANTOS

    021 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 6714 February 2, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO MENDOZA

    021 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 6870 February 2, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. SILVERIO MAMONONG

    021 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 6242 February 3, 1912 - ARCADIA REYNES v. LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

    021 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 6434 February 6, 1912 - LUCAS REYES v. MGR. JEREMIAH J. HARTY Archbishop of Manila

    021 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 6707 February 8, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. Go-LENG

    021 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 6818 February 10, 1912 - ANGELO ANDRES, ET AL. v. VALERIANA PIMENTEL

    021 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 7265 February 12, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. COSME JUARES ET AL.

    021 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 4824 February 13, 1912 - BERNARDO RAFANAN LAO SAYCO

    021 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 6535 February 13, 1912 - ALEJANDRO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    021 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 6614 February 14, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. ONOFRE ODRUÑA ET AL.

    021 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 6285 February 15, 1912 - PEDRO BARUT v. FAUSTINO CABACUNGAN, ET AL.

    021 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 6858 February 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. DIONISIO LOMONGSOD ET AL.

    021 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. 6897 February 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. POLICARPIO TAYONGTONG

    021 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 6583 February 16, 1912 - RAMON FABIE ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA

    021 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 6761 February 16, 1912 - LIM TUICO v. CU-UNJIENG

    021 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 6789 February 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CALIXTO LARANJA

    021 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 7286 February 17, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN RECIO

    021 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 6909 February 20, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. HACHAW

    021 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 7132 February 20, 1912 - MARIA ESGUERRA v. MARIANO TECSON ET AL.

    021 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 6322 February 21, 1912 - DOLORES AVELINO v. VICTORIANA DE LA CRUZ

    021 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 6741 February 21, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NEMESIO BONOAN, ET AL.

    022 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 6759 February 21, 1912 - DEOGRACIAS SEBBANO v. ANDRES SERRANO ARAGON

    022 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 7154 February 21, 1912 - ELEANOR ERICA STRONG, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE

    022 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 5953 February 24, 1912 - ANTONIO M. PABALAN v. FELICIANO VELEZ

    022 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 6749 February 26, 1912 - ZOILO IBAÑEZ DE ALDECOA, ET AL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP., ET AL.

    022 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 5932 February 27, 1912 - DEAN C. WORCESTER v. MARTIN OCAMPO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 6413 February 27, 1912 - MUERTEGUY & ABOITIZ v. ISIDORO V. DELGADO

    022 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 6479 February 27, 1912 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. SILVERIO F. JIONGCO, ET AL

    022 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 6705 February 27, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE SALVADOR

    022 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 7029 February 27, 1912 - CHINA NAVIGATION CO. v. CIPRIANO VIDAL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 6471 February 29, 1912 - EUGENIO SOBREVILLA v. FELIX C. MONTINOLA, ET AL

    022 Phil 124