BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
AUREL ANN CHUA-CHIBA VS. JIN CHIBA AND MICHAEL LLONA, G.R. NO. 277020 (MAY 19, 2025): RESTATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE THAT THE CRIME OF ADULTERY MUST BE PROSECUTED BY THE OFFENDED SPOUSE
On December 21, 2022, respondent Jin Chiba (Jin), through his authorized representative, Marvin O. Ayende (Marvin), filed a complaint-affidavit charging petitioner Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba (Aurel) and respondent Michael Llona (Michael) of the crimes of adultery and grave threats before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City (OCP Pasay City). After preliminary investigation, OCP Pasay City found probable cause to charge Aurel and Michael of the crimes of adultery and grave threats and two separate Informations were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 167. The trial court issued warrants of arrest and the accused posted bail for their provisional liberty.
Aurel then filed a motion to dismiss ex abundanti ad cautelam seeking the dismissal of the case arguing that the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted by a complete stranger armed by a special power of attorney, and also sought the dismissal of the grave threats in view of the alleged deprivation of due process. The trial court dismissed the adultery case. On a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 112 reversed and set aside the ruling of the MeTC of Pasay City, Branch 167 and reinstated the case for adultery. Aurel then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery should not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The Court restated the rationale of the strict adherence to the jurisdictional requirement that a complaint for adultery must be filed by the offended spouse. The Court held, “This legal requirements was imposed ‘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.’ The law leaves it to the option of the aggrieved spouse to seek judicial redress for the affront committed by the erring spouse.”
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the complaint for adultery against Aurel and Michael was not initiated by Jin, the offended spouse. Records revealed that the prosecution for the crime of adultery commenced with a complaint-affidavit filed by Marvin, Jin’s authorized representative. The Court held that although Jin submitted his own complaint-affidavit accusing Aurel and Michael of adultery, it was only attached as an annex to the complaint-affidavit filed by Marvin.
As a commentary, this is clearly a sound policy as even in administrative cases involving gross immorality against lawyer, the Supreme Court has recognized and upheld respect for familial and marital privacy ruling that “allegations of illicit affairs are undoubtedly and deeply private that only these victims can credibly recount as borne from their own personal knowledge and firsthand experience.” The Court also held that “these issues will put relationships and families in a vulnerable state” and unlike any other person whose concern may be relegated to a mere curiosity, academic, or sentimental desire, the interest of these victims is actual and material.” (Maria Victoria L. Yao, et al. vs. Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio, A.C. No. 12354 (November 5, 2024).