G.R. No. L-38308 December 26, 1984
MILAGROS DONIO-TEVES and MANUEL MORENO, petitioners, vs. HON. CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., as Presiding Judge, Branch III, Court of First Instance, Negros Oriental, PABLO E. CABAHUG, as City Fiscal of Dumaguete, and JULIAN L. TEVES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Milagros Donio-Teves and Manuel Moreno were charged with adultery before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental. The criminal proceeding was initiated by a thumbmarked letter-complaint dated July 13, 1972, filed by complainant Julian L. Teves, the husband of petitioner Milagros, with the City Fiscal. Attached were affidavits of witnesses. After a preliminary investigation where the complainant affirmed his letter and was cross-examined, petitioners moved to dismiss, challenging the City Fiscal’s jurisdiction due to an alleged improper complaint. The motion was denied.
Subsequently, the complainant filed a new thumbmarked letter-complaint dated January 16, 1973, attaching his own affidavit. An Information was later filed in court on March 26, 1973, accompanied by a sworn complaint again thumbmarked by the complainant. Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash, challenging the court’s jurisdiction and the fiscal’s authority, arguing the complaint was insufficient for a private crime like adultery. The respondent judge denied the motion and the motion for reconsideration, leading petitioners to file this special civil action.

ISSUE

Whether the sworn complaint thumbmarked by the offended husband is a valid and sufficient complaint to initiate prosecution for the crime of adultery, which requires a complaint filed by the offended party.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition, upholding the validity of the complaint. The legal logic is that for private crimes like adultery under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the law requires a complaint by the offended party to initiate the action, but does not prescribe a specific form. The complaint need not be technically perfect or contain a detailed narration of facts; it is sufficient if it identifies the accused, specifies the offense, and expresses the offended party’s desire to prosecute. The thumbmarked complaints and the sworn affidavit filed by the offended husband in this case clearly manifested his intention to accuse the petitioners of adultery, thereby satisfying the statutory requirement. The Court emphasized that the condition for a complaint in private crimes is for the protection of the aggrieved party, allowing them to avoid public scandal. However, once a valid complaint is filed, the State takes over the prosecution, and the action proceeds independently of the complainant’s subsequent wishes. The objections raised by petitioners were deemed formalistic and dilatory, as the substance of the complainant’s intent to prosecute was unequivocally established through the series of documents he submitted.