The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that only the offended spouse has the legal right to file and pursue criminal complaints for adultery and concubinage, dismissing a case that was initiated through a representative rather than personally by the aggrieved partner.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., the Court’s Second Division ruled that adultery and concubinage are private crimes that can be prosecuted only if the complaint is filed personally by the offended spouse. The ruling overturned a Regional Trial Court decision that had reinstated an adultery case after it was earlier dismissed by a Metropolitan Trial Court.
The case stemmed from a complaint for adultery and grave threats filed by a representative of Jin Chiba against Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba and Michael Llona. While Jin later submitted his own affidavit, it was attached only as an annex to the representative’s filing.
The Metropolitan Trial Court initially dismissed the adultery charge, citing the rule that only the offended spouse may file such a case. The Regional Trial Court later reversed that ruling, holding that the complaint was valid because Jin’s affidavit appeared in the case records.
The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation.
Citing Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court stressed that the law requires a complaint for adultery or concubinage to be filed personally by the offended spouse. Filing through an agent or representative does not meet the legal threshold, even if the spouse later submits an affidavit.
The Court explained that the requirement exists “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.”
It added that the law recognizes the right of the offended spouse to decide whether to pursue the matter in court or resolve it privately.
In this case, the Court ruled that the complaint was invalid because it was filed by a representative and not by the offended spouse himself. The attachment of Jin’s affidavit as an annex did not cure the defect.
“This,” the Court said, “failed to satisfy the legal requirement.”
The ruling reinforces long-standing doctrine that private crimes place control squarely in the hands of spouses, underscoring that the decision to expose marital disputes to public prosecution belongs solely to the person directly wronged.
