G.R. No.

L-39683 October 10, 1983

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROGELIO PERIO-PERIO, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Vicente Gregorio for accused-appellant.

RELOVA, J.:

On June 24, 1972, spouses Domingo Albios and Tomasa Albios, their daughter Luzviminda Albios,
and nieces Ester Tangcay and Delia Villa, attended the inauguration of a new school building in
Bagwa, Sibutad, Zamboanga del Norte. As part of the celebration, a dance was held attended by the
residents of the community. Domingo Albios and his family left the dance at about two o'clock in the
morning of June 25, 1972 and proceeded for their residence. As it was showering, Tomasa wore a
hat, her husband's loafer and a towel. Domingo covered himself with a banana leaf only, while their
other companions did not have anything on to protect themselves.

While they were walking home in a column, with Tomasa Albios leading the way, they heard an
explosion or a gunshot. Immediately, Domingo and his companions, except Tomasa, hid themselves
in the bushes nearest them, and almost simultaneously they heard Tomasa saying: "Aguy Domingo,
I was hit." From his hiding place, Domingo saw his wife Tomasa turn around and fall to the ground.
As he was not armed, Domingo ran home to inform the members of his family that Tomasa was
shot. Likewise, he was able to report the matter to the policeman who was on duty at the dance.

Tomasa died on the spot. Her body was taken to the Albios residence where they found her
wounded at the left side of her back thru the front of the abdomen. Her body was not examined by a
physician before she was buried at the municipal cemetery of Sibutad, Zamboanga del Norte.

The incident was brought to the attention of the Chief of Police who, together with Patrolmen Palma
and Necesario, went to the scene of the crime immediately after they had received the information.
As the body of the victim was no longer there, they proceeded to her residence. It came out from the
investigation conducted by the said peace officers that Tomasa Albios was a paramour of one
Florencio Jumawan. As a consequence, said Jumawan was brought to the police station where he
was investigated and admitted that he hired one Rogelio Perio-Perio to shoot Domingo Albios,
husband of Tomasa. In the process, it was Tomasa who was hit.

The Chief of Police had Perio-Perio located and, upon investigation, the latter admitted that he was
hired by Florencio Jumawan to shoot Domingo Albios, husband of Tomasa. Perio-Perio also
revealed that it was a home- made shotgun he used in shooting the victim. Florencio Jumawan
indicated to the authorities the place where he hid the fatal weapon. The Chief of Police, together
with Fiscal Balisado went to the place indicated (in the plantation owned by a certain Cabilin) and
there they found the weapon.

An information for murder was filed against Rogelio Perio-Perio. and only against him because
Florencio Jumawan died when he was detained in the municipal jail of Sibutad.
Defendant Perio-Perio denied his alleged participation in the commission of the crime charged. In
fact, he claimed that he did not even know where Sitio Bagwa is, much less has he ever been there.
He admitted his signature in the document, marked Exhibit "E", but contended that he had to sign it
because the policemen told him that he would be killed if he would refuse, He was not even asked
questions but was only presented with the said document for his signature. Likewise, he denied
having been brought to the Office of Municipal Judge Nicomedes Cabasa. It was in the Office of the
Chief of Police where he saw the judge. He also denied the statement imputed to him that Florencio
Jumawan offered him P100.00 to shoot Domingo Albios; and, regarding the weapon used in the
commission of the crime, he saw it for the first time only in court,

The testimony of the accused Perio-Perio was rebutted by Patrolman Mario Calizo saying that it was
the Chief of Police who investigated herein accused, and that he did not maltreat or force the latter
to sign Exhibit "E."

After trial, the lower court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Rogelio Perio-Perio guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the information. The commission of the
crime, however, was attended with treachery, and as defined and penalized under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty, imposable is reclusion temporal
in its maximum period to death. As there are no mitigating and no aggravating
circumstances to consider, the penalty to be imposed should be in its medium period.

The accused Rogelio Perio-Perio is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

He is further sentenced to suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by law.

He is further sentenced to pay the heirs of the victim P12,000.00 as indemnity for the
death of the victim; P10,000.00 for moral damages; P10,000.00 for exemplary
damages and P5,000.00 for loss of earning capacity.

He is further sentenced to pay the cost.

As detained prisoner he is entitled to all his preventive imprisonment if he will agree

in writing to abide by all the rules and regulations provided for convicted persons,
otherwise he will be entitled to only four-fifths (415) thereof. The firearm, a
homemade shotgun or paliuntod cased in the commission is hereby ordered
confiscated in favor of the state and turned over to the Philippine Constabulary for
proper disposition.

The trial court said that even if it were to disregard the extrajudicial confession, the following facts
appeared uncontradicted:

(a) That on June 25, 1972, Tomasa Abao de Albios was shot while on her way home
from a dance at the Bagacay Elementary School and died on the spot. Her body was
later taken to her home where police authorities saw and examined it.

(b) That the accused Florencio Jumawan had an' affair of the heart with the
deceased Tomasa Abao de Albios.

(c) That there was a prior attempt to eliminate Domingo Albios.

 (d) 'That immediately before the shooting of Tomasa, the accused Florencio
Jumawan was seen by witness Warlito Embrado talking with accused Rogelio Perio-
Perio. Florencio Jumawan was pointing to accused, Rogelio Perio-Perio, at several
directions around them.

(e) That Tomasa Albios was shot and killed near the spot where both accused had
been seen talking, the previous day.

(f) That accused Rogelio Perio-Perio was then living with the accused, now
deceased, Florencio Jumawan.

(g) That accused Rogelio Perio-Perio, before his affidavit confession) was taken, he
admitted his participation in the commission of the crime.

(h) He admitted that he was offered by his then co-accused Florencio Jumawan the
sum of P100.00 to shoot Domingo Albios.

(i) In Instead of Domingo Albios being shot and killed, it was Tomasa Albios, the
paramour of Florencio Jumawan who was killed.

(ii) That the death weapon, Exhibit "F" was found by the authorities where both
Jumawan and Perio-Perio said Jumawan hid it in the mud in a rice field. This
particular fact belied the claim of the accused that he did not know anything about
the death weapon. As hidden, it was impossible to find that "paliuntod" unless the
person or persons who hid it were to locate it themselves. Therefore, it is clear that
accused Rogelio Perio-Perio knew where the gun was hidden, otherwise he could
not have divulged its exact location to the police authorities. (pp. 20-21, Rollo)

Appealing to Us, Perio-Perio alleged that the trial court erred (1) in finding that appellant, before his
alleged extrajudicial confession was taken, had admitted his participation in the commission of the
crime and that, he was offered by his then co-accused Florencio Jumawan a sum of money to shoot
Domingo Albios; and, (2) in finding that appellant knew where the deadly weapon was.

Going over the records of the case, it is clear that prosecution witnesses, Domingo Albios and
Luzviminda Albios, who were then with the deceased, Tomasa Albios, both admitted in court that
they did not see, much less recognize, the appellant. Domingo declared:

Q Have you heard a shot that was fired that hit your wife?

A I heard.

Q Then what did you do upon hearing the shot?

A What I did when I heard the explosion I threw myself to the bushes
to hid myself.

Q How long have you kept yourself hidden in the bushes?

A For short while.

Q Then what did you do?

 A During the explosion I heard my wife said, "Aguy Domingo, I was
hit." From the place I hid myself I looked towards the place where my
wife was and I saw her turn around and fall to the ground. When I
saw that I ran towards our place because I have no arm.

Q Were you able to see the persons who shot your wife?

A I did not. (pp. 4-5, tsn., May 17, 1973, Emphasis supplied)

And, hereunder is the testimony of Luzviminda Albios on this point:

Q While on your way, do you remember if there was anything unusual

that happened?

A Yes, sir.

Q What was that incident about?

A The incident was that my mother was shot, sir.

Q Have you seen the person who shot your mother?

A I did not see, sir.

Q How did you know that your mother was shot?

A I know that my mother was shot because I heard an explosion, sir.

Q When you heard that explosion, what did you do?

A I hid myself, sir.

Q Where did you hide yourself?

A Among the bushes, sir.

Q How long have you remained hiding yourself in the bushes?

A If I am not mistaken, almost one hour, sir. (tsn., pp, 4, June

19,1973 hearing)

Basis of the suspicion that it was appellant who fired the shot was the testimony of Warlito Embrado
who, according to the trial judge, saw Florencio Jumawan the day before the incident talking with
and pointing to Perio-Perio "several directions around them." Thus, Embrado testified as follows:

Q Do you remember where were you on June 24, 1972 particularly in

the afternoon?

A Yes, sir.
 Q Please tell the Honorable Court where were you on that date?

A In our place in Bagwa, Sibutad, Zamboanga del Norte, sir.

Q While you were in your place in Bagwa, Sibutad, Zamboanga del

Norte, do you remember having seen a person somewhere in your
place?

A Yes, sir.

Q Who were those persons whom you saw?

A I saw Florencio Jumawan and the accused, Rogelio Perio-Perio,

sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q In what particular place in Bagwa, Sibutad, Zamboanga del Norte

did you see these two persons?

A In our palay seedbeds near our house, sir.

Q What were they doing when you saw them?

A I saw them and in that instance, Florencio Jumawan was raising his
hands and pointing in different directions and ,My wife inquired from
me what they were doing there and I answered 'maybe about the
tethering of the carabao of Florencio Jumawan used to tether that
carabao in that place, sir.

Q How long did Florencio Jumawan and Rogelio Perio-Perio stay in

that place near your house?

A About five minutes, sir.

Q After that, sis you notice where did they go?

A Yes, sir.

Q Where?

A They proceeded on their way home, sir. (tsn., pp. 36-37, Feb. 14,
1974 hearing)

By any stretch of the imagination We cannot bring to ourselves the relevance or connection between
the meeting and conversation of Jumawan and Perio-Perio and the death of Tomasa Albios. In the
first place, Embrado did not hear what the two were talking about. On the contrary, he could only
guess that they were r eferring to the tethering of their carabaos. Secondly, it is hard to believe that
Jumawan knew at the time that the Albios family would be passing the place at the particular hour
and in whose company they would be. To convict appellant on this testimony of Embrado or to
consider it as proof would be basing conviction on mere inference "which can hardly be said to be
reasonable, much less inescapable." (People vs. Maisug, 27 SCRA 742)

Then, there is the Chief of Police, Marcelino Camaso, who testified that when he investigated
Florencio Jumawan, the latter pointed to herein appellant as the one who fired the shot intended for
Domingo, but instead, hit Tomasa. Whereupon, Perio-Perio was brought in for investigation and the
latter allegedly admitted in writing (Exhibit "E") that Jumawan hired hin for P100.00 to shoot and kill
Domingo Albios because tile latter's wife was Jumawan's mistress. Further, Camaso declared that
Jumawan pointed to him the place where he hid the weapon used in the shooting of the victim in the
coconut plantation of a certain Cabilin. Accompanied by Jumawan they went to the place and
recovered the homemade shotgun (Exhibit " F ").

The only evidence which would pin appellant to the case at bar are his statement (Exhibit "E") and
the recovery of the firearm (Exhibit "F"). Relative thereto, We are dubious of appellant's guilt
because-

1. Why would Jumawan a married man, plot the assassination of Domingo Albios
when the latter is the offended party in the alleged liaison of the former with Tomasa,
a mother of ten (10) children. The reverse would be more natural and logical. And,
there is no certainty that Tomasa is really the mistress of Jumawan.

2. After appellant was arrested and detained he obtained injuries during his
investigation and signing of Exhibit "E". In his decision, the trial judge said: "He
showed his small scar on his right upper lip and another scar on the right elbow and
on the left forehead which according to him were scars of the wound when he was hit
with the pistol butt by Patrolman Mario Caliso who warned him that he will kill him if
he will not sign the confession or if he will tell the judge 'hat he was maltreated." (p.
163-164, original Records)

3. Florencio Jumawan died even before a case against him could be filed in court. As
observed by the trial court in its decision, Jumawan "died of an illness. Apparently, he
was not attended by any physician while he was detained in the municipal jail of
Sibutad, Zamboanga del Norte, although he was sent to the Rizal Memorial Hospital
for treatment when his sickness was already quite serious. As a matter of fact, he
died oil is way to the hospital." (p. 154, Original Records) do not show the nature of
his fatal illness and what caused it, or why no medical attendance was given him-
circumstances which, according to the defense-"give rise to the inference that he was
a victim of torture."

4. The victim, Tomasa Albios, was not autopsied before she was buried. While it was
true that she died of gunshot wounds, there is no evidence that the bullet that hit her
came from the firearm, Exhibit "F". Stated differently, any gun could have been
presented with a "concocted story that it was found where the accused had said it
was hidden." (p. 10, Appellant's brief).

5. Appellant, a third grader, testified that he saw the firearm, Exhibit "F", for the first
time in court and he was not the one who told the Chief of Police where it was
hidden; that he signed the statement (Exhibit "E") because he was maltreated and
threatened to be kill On this point, the Chief of Police declared that before taking the
confession "of Perio-Perio he advised the latter that under the constitution, he has
the right to be assisted by counsel, right not to answer my question and explained to
the accused that whatever the accused will say, will be used against him or in his
 favor, as the case maybe," (p. 158, Original Records) The advice supposedly given
appellant, particularly on the mattter of assistance of counsel, does not appear on
Exhibit "E" because the only question asked in connection therewith was -

INVESTIGATION: Are you willing to answer all questions that may be propounded to
you, and are you willing to sign this statement to prove that all you stated here are
true and correct? pp. 86, Original Records)

SUBJECT: Yes, I am willing to answer and to sign this statement.

We are astonished that the requisites of the 1973 Constitution with respect to the
admission of extrajudicial confession, were allegedly observed by the police when
the statement of appellant was taken on June 25, 1972 or before the new
fundamental law took effect.

Under these circumstances, it is hard to believe that the statement (Exhibit "E") was given freely and
voluntarily. The least that can be said of the People's evidence in the case at bar is, it is insufficient
to sustain the allegations of the information because it is tainted with doubt, inconclusiveness and
inferences consonant with the innocence of the accused. The rule requiring proof beyond
reasonable doubt has not been complied with. It is true that appellant's defense of alibi is weak, but
well established and founded is the rule that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own
evidence and not of the weakness of the defense; and that the accused need not prove his
innocence because that is presumed.

WHEREFORE, on reasonable doubt, the judgment of the lower court, dated August 30, 1974 is
REVERSED and appellant Rogelio Perio-Perio is hereby ACQUITTED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Actg. Chairman), Abad Santos, Plana and Escolin, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-58595 October 10, 1983

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
HON. RICARDO M. ILARDE, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, CFI of Iloilo, Br. V, CECILE
SANTIBANEZ and AVELINO T. JAVELLANA, respondents.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Panfilo B. Enojas for respondents.

ESCOLIN, J.:

Petition for review on certiorari of the order of the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial
Court) of Iloilo, Branch V, presided by the respondent Judge Ricardo M. Ilarde, granting the motion
to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 13086, entitled, "People of the Philippines, plaintiff
versus Cecile Santibañez and Avelino T. Javellana accused."
The information in Criminal Case No. 13086 was filed on March 4, 1981 by City Fiscal Ricardo P.
Galvez. It reads:

The undersigned City Fiscal upon sworn complaint originally filed by the offended
party Efraim Santibañez, copies of which are thereto attached as Annexes "A" and
"B" hereby accused CECILE SANTIBAÑEZ and AVELINO T. JAVELLANA of the
crime of adultery, committed as follows:

That on or about the 3rd day of November, 1980, in the City of Iloilo, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Court, said accused Cecile Santibañez being lawfully
married to Efraim Santibañez, which marriage at that time has not been legally
dissolved, with deliberate intent, did then and there wilfully, maliciously and criminally
have sexual intercourse with her coaccused Avelino T. Javellana, a man not his
husband and who in turn knowing fully well that his co-accused was then lawfully
married to Efraim Santibañez, did then and there wilfully, maliciously and criminally
have sexual intercourse with her.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 1

Annex "A" referred to in the information is the sworn complaint for adultery filed by Efraim
Santibañez against herein private respondents, Cecile Santibanez and Avelino T. Javellana, with the
Integrated National Police, Iloilo Metro Police District, Iloilo City, on November 4, 1980, which
complaint was immediately forwarded to the Office of the City Fiscal for preliminary investigation.
Said complaint reads:

COMPLAINT

The undersigned accuses ATTY. AVELINO JAVELLANA, a resident of CPU

Compound, Jaro, Iloilo City, and Cecile Santibañez. a resident of Candido
Subdivision, Iloilo City, for the crime of adultery ...

xxx xxx xxx

(
S
g
d
.
)

E
F
R
A
I
M

S
A
N
T
I
 B
A
Ñ
E
Z

(
S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
a
n
t
)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 4th day of November, 1980 in the
City of Iloilo:
Annex "B" of the information is the affidavit-complaint dated November 6, 1980
executed by Efraim Santibañez, sworn to and filed before City Fiscal Galvez on
November 7, 1980, wherein Santibañez recounted in detail the antecedents which
brought about the apprehension in flagrante of privaterespondents. The same is
quoted as follows:

I, EFRAIM SANTIBAÑEZ, of age, married, and a resident of Fundidor Molo, Iloilo

City, after having been duly sworn to according to law depose and say:

That I am legally married to Cecile Soriano in a Civil Marriage solemnized by Judge

Vicente Santos, City Court of Pasay City on March 22, 1974 but subsequently
remarried in a religious ceremony before Rev. Panfilo T. Brasil at the Parish Church
of La Paz, iloilo City on July 18, 1974, xerox copies of the aforesaid marriage
contracts are hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "B", forming integral parts of this
affidavit;

After our marriage, I built a house for our permanent residence and as our conjugal
home in Fundidor, Molo, Iloilo City and furnished it with all the comforts well within
my means;

At the start of our marriage, I was led to believe by my wife of her total concern, love
and devotion to me valid in turn I lavished her with all the material comfort at my
command and even tried to build up her social status by sending her as a delegate to
the Zonta World Conference at Washington, D.C. last July, 1980 without any
company. As a token of my love and unfailing trust we went sightseeing and on
second honeymoon to Hongkong only last month.

Sometime during the last week of October, 1980, while I went on my normal work
routine to Passi Sugar Millsite in Passi Iloilo, my son Edmund took me aside in
confidence and told me that he has some very delicate matters to take up with which
may be misinterpreted by me or may be taken by her in a wrong light; however, he
said hat the his valid dignity of the family is at mistake and I have to know it whatever
be the consequence. After I gave him the go signal, he narrated to her that my wife
Cecile Sorianosos has been unfaithful to me and has been. having illicit relationship
with another man. Of curse, I was taken aback and stunned so I asked him for the
source of his information. He informed me that our maid Elsa Barios and our driver
Loreto Reales had beeen aware of the relationship and the man usually went to my
house and even slept there whenever I was in Manila. I got angry and blamed our
maid and the driver for not telling me but Edmund told me that they were afraid to tell
because they were threatened. After I have calmed down, I commended that if I
confront my wife about her illicit relationship, she will surely deny it. So I thought that
the best way was to catch her red-handed in the act of infidelity so that she could not
deny it. anymore. I suggested to Edmund to think of a plan so we can catch his wife
red-handed.

After several days of planning we agreed to put our plan of action in operation on
November 3, 1980 since I will be leaving for Manila in the morning of that day. Our
problem was how to catch my wife in the very act of having sexual intercourse with
her lover considering the fact that our master's room was air-conditioned with all
windows framed by glass jalousies closed and covered by curtains. At first we
thought of breaking down the main door with a sledge hammer so we could take
them by surprise, later we abandoned the Idea because of legal complications,

Finally, I thought of removing a glass of the jalousy so the inside of the bedroom can
be seen from the outside once the curtain can be brushed aside by means of a thin
wire and the persons on bed could be seen clearly since the bed is on the same level
as the opening of the window. After several experiments whenever my wife was out, I
found out that my wife cannot notice the removal of the glass jalousy since our
windows are screened from the inside of our room.

As pre-arranged, I removed one jalousy glass of the window of our master room so
that the people inside our room could be seen actually from the outside and the
moment my wife and her lover is seen in the act of sexual intercourse.

Having completed all the plans to effect our plan of operation, I told my wife that I
Qfor Manila on that day. I instructed my son Edmund to inform me immediately of the
result of the plan of action as soon as possible.

Almost midnight of November 3, 1980, I was informed by my daughter-in-law

Rebecca that the operation was successful and resulted in the arrest of my wife and
Atty. Bob Javellana inside our bedroom.

I know Atty. Bob Javellana for quite a time and we have been close friends. As a
friend he has come to our house at Molo Iloilo City oftentimes to discuss matters
about the court case between the Iloilo City Government and St. Therese Memorial
Chapel which is a business which I have given to my wife Cecile. Atty. Javellana
knew that Cecile Sorianosos is my legally married wife.

When I returned to Iloilo City from Manila on November 4, 1980, I was shown the
photographs taken inside our master bedroom and I am attaching hereto the
photographs which are marked as Annexes "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", "H", "I" and "J".
 That I am formally charging my wife, Cecile Sorianosos and Atty. Bob Javellana of
Qcomplaint against them (pp. 4-5, Original Records).

Sometime in January 1981, i.e., before the conclusion of the preliminary investigation then being
conducted by the Fiscal's Office, Efraim Santibañez learned that he was sick of cancer and decided
to leave for the United States for medical treatment. Before his departure, he executed a holographic
Will, dated January 10, 1981, a portion of which provided:

I do hereby disinherit my second wife Cecilia Sorianosos of any and all inheritance
she is entitled under the law as my wife on the ground that she had given cause for
legal separation by committing acts of adultery with Atty. Bob Javellana in the
evening of November 3, 1980 in my conjugal abode at Candido Subdivision and as a
result of which I charged her and Atty. Bob Javellana for adultery with the Fiscal's
Office and I filed a case of legal separation against her in Civil Case No. SP- 11-309
of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in Iloilo City for which act of infidelity, I
can never forgive her.2

On January 15, 1981, after several requests for postponement, private respondents submitted their
memorandum to the Fiscal's Office; and on February 19, 1981, Fiscal Galvez issued a resolution
finding the existence of a prima facie case for adultery against private respondents.

On February 26, 1981, Fiscal Galvez was informed by relatives of Efraim Santibañez that the latter
had died in the United States on February 16, 1981. This notwithstanding, he prepared the
information in question on March 3, 1981, and on the following and filed the same with the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo.

Private respondents filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the offense charged, as the offended party had not filed the required
complaint pursuant to the provisions of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 4, Rule
110 of the Rules of Court to the effect that "the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be
prosecuted except upon a complaint filed and the offended spouse,"

Finding merit in the position taken by private respondents, respondent judge granted the motion and
dismissed the case. The city fiscal moved for a reconsideration, but the same was denied. Hence,
the present recourse.

The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not there has been compliance with the requirement of
Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, reiterated in Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, that
"the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by
the offended party "

We rule in the affirmative,

We are aware that in a long line of decisions,3 this Court has maintained strict adherence to the
requirement imposed by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.

It must be borne in mind, however, that this legal requirement 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." 4 Thus, the law leaves it to the option of the aggrieved spouse to seek
judicial redress for the affront committed by the erring spouse. And this, to Our mind, should be the
overriding consideration in determining the issue of whether or not the condition precedent
prescribed by said Article 344 has been complied with. For needless to state, this Court should be
guided by the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law.

In the case at bar, the desire of the offended party, Efraim Santibañez, to bring his wife and her
alleged paramour to justice is only too evident. Such determination of purpose on his part is amply
demonstrated in the dispatch by which he filed his complaint with the police [annex "A", supra]; the
strong and unequivocal statement contained in the affidavit filed with the Fiscal's Office that "I am
formally charging my wife Cecile Sorianosos and Atty. Bob Javellana of the crime of adultery and
would request that this affidavit be considered as a formal complaint against them" [Annex
"B", supra]; his filing of a complaint for legal separation against Cecile Santibañez with the local
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court; and finally, in disinheriting his wife in his Last Will and
Testament dated January 10, 1981.

In quashing the information, respondent judge relied upon Our decision in People vs. Santos 5 to the
effect that a "salaysay" or sworn statement of the offended party, which prompted the fiscal to
conduct a preliminary investigation and then to file an information in court, was not the complaint
required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.

The ruling in Santos is not applicable to the case at bar. In that case, the "salaysay" executed by
complainant Bansuelo was not considered the complaint contemplated by Article 344 of the Revised
Penal Code because it was a mere narration of how the crime of rape was committed against her.
However, in the affidavit-complainant submitted by Efraim Santibañez, the latter not only narrated
the facts and circumstances constituting the crime of adultery, but he also explicitly and categorically
charged private respondents with the said offense. Thus—

That I am formally charging my wife Cecile Sorianosos and Atty. Bob Javellana of the
crime of adultery and would request that this affidavit be considered as a formal
complaint against them.

Moreover, in Santos, this Court noted that the information filed by Rizal Provincial Fiscal Nicanor P.
Nicolas "commenced with the statement "the undersigned fiscal accuses Engracio Santos with the
crime of rape," the offended party not having been mentioned at all as one of the accusers." In the
instant case, however, the information filed by the city fiscal of Iloilo reads as follows:

The undersigned city fiscal upon sworn statement originally filed by the offended party Efraim
Santibañez, xerox copies of which are hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "B" ...

Undoubtedly, the complaint-affidavit filed by Santibañez contains all the elements of a valid
complaint, as "it states the names of the defendants, the designation of the offense by the statute,
the acts or omission complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party, the
approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was
committed. 6

What is more, said complaint-affidavit was attached to the information as an integral part thereof,
and duly filed with the court. As held in Fernandez vs. Lantin, 7 the filing in court of which affidavit or
sworn statement of the offended party, if it contains all the allegations required of a criminal
complaint under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, constitutes sufficient compliance of the
law. Thus:

... in a case where the Fiscal filed an Information charging the accused with "telling
some people ill the neighborhood that said Fausta Bravo (a married woman) was a
paramour of one Sangalang, a man not her husband", and Fausta Bravo did not
 subscribe to the complaint this Court held that the trial court had no jurisdiction over
the case. It ruled that since the accused imputed to Fausta Bravo the commission of
adultery, a crime which cannot be prosecuted cle oficio, the Information filed by the
Fiscal cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court of origin.

lt must be noted, however, that this error could be corrected without sustaining the
motion to quash and dismissing the case. Pursuant to section I of paragraph (a) of
Presidential Decree No. 77, under which the Assistant City Fiscal conducted the
preliminary investigation the statement of the complainant was sworn to before the
aforesaid Investigating Fiscal. Assuming that the recitals in said worn statement
contain all those required of a complaint under the rules i copy of said verified -
statement of the complainant should be filed With respondent Court in order to
comply with the requirements of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code; otherwise,
the respondent Fiscal should file with said court a verified complaint of the offended
party

Upon these premises, We cannot but conclude that the adultery charge against private respondents
is being prosecuted "upon complaint filed by the offended party."

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted. The orders of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo,
Branch V, in Criminal Case No. 13086, dated May 21 and September 14, 1981, are hereby set
aside, and respondent judge is directed to proceed with the trial of the case on the merits. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos and Relo , JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., and De Castro, J., are on leave.

Footnotes

1 p. 1, Original Records.

2 pp. 92-93, Original Records.

3 U.S. v. Gomez, 12 Phil. 279; U.S. v. Narvas 14 Phil. 410; U.S. v. dela Cruz, 17
Phil. 139; U.S. v. Castañares 18 Phil. 210; U.S. v. Salazar, 19 Phil. 233; Quilatan and
Santiago v. Caruncho, 21 Phil. 399; People v. Martinez, 76 Phil. 559.

4 Samilin vs. CFI of Pangasinan, 57 Phil. 298, 304.

5 101 Phil. 798.

6 SEC. 5. Sufficiency of complaint or information.—A complaint or information is

sufficient if it states the name of the defendant; the designation of the offense by the
statute; the acts or Omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of
the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the
place wherein the offense was committed...
 7 74 SCRA 338,343,344.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-60577 October 11, 1983

JOSEFA LEGASPI-SANTOS, petitioner,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CONSOLACION C. LEGASPI, and JESUS C.
LEGASPI, respondents.

RELOVA, J.:

In April 1958, Civil Case No. 1692-M, entitled "Manuel C. Legaspi, et al. vs. Consolacion Legaspi, et
al.," was filed with the then Court of First Instance of Bulacan, for partition of properties left by their
deceased parents, Fidel Legaspi and Gregoria Cristobal; accounting of the fruits thereof-and petition
for receivership. During the pendency of the case, Josefa Legaspi-Santos, the petitioner herein filed
a complaint in intervention claiming a share in the properties involved, as daughter of Fidel Legaspi
before his marriage to Gregoria Cristobal.

In June 1980, after more than twenty (20) years, said Civil Case No. 1692-M, was decided by the
trial court, dividing all the properties left by Don Fidel Legaspi involving more than 50 parcels of land
among plaintiffs and defendants (as children of the second marriage), and dismissing for lack of
merit the intervention of herein petitioner Josefa Legaspi-Santos (only child of his first marriage). The
parties were furnished copies of the decision which were served on them on different dates. upon
motion, the court gave each of the parties additional 30 days extension of time within which to
appeal the decision.

On August 14, 1980, intervenor Josefa Legaspi-Santos filed a motion for extension of time. within
which to appeal the aforesaid decision. The trial court gave her 30 days.

On September 15, 1980, Josefa Legaspi-Santos again moved for another extension of 20 days
within which to perfect her appeal. The motion was granted by the court.

On October 8, 1980, Josefa Legaspi-Santos filed another motion for extension of 20 days within
which to perfect her appeal but, this time, the lower court, in its Order of October 13, 1980, denied it
on the ground that the period for perfecting her appeal had expired on October 7, 1980, in which
case there was no more period to extend and the court had already lost jurisdiction to act on the
motion.

Herein petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order of October 13. 1980, claiming that
her motion for extension was filed one (1) day late only this being due to the excusable mistake of
her lawyer in computing the number of days and considering that courts are liberal in granting
requests for extensions. Reconsideration was granted in an Order, dated December 15, 1980, giving
intervenor ten (10) days from receipt of copy of the order within which to perfect her appeal.
The trial court's Order of December 15, 1980 was assailed by herein private respondents,
Consolacion C. Legaspi and Jesus C. Legaspi, before the then Court of Appeals which ruled that the
trial court "gravely abused its discretion or acted without jurisdiction when it reconsidered the Order
of October 13, 1980 through the assailed Order dated December 15, 1980 (Annex 'A' of the Petition)
giving intervenor 10 days from receipt of the copy of the order within which to perfect her appeal.
This is so because the decision had already become final and respondent judge had no longer
jurisdiction to reconsider his previous order." (p. 10, Decision in CA-G.R. No. SP-12299) Thus, the
Order dated December 15, 1980 of the lower court was set aside, "for having been issued without
jurisdiction or in grave abuse of discretion.

Hence, the filing of the instant petition for review by certiorari, wherein petitioner Josefa Legaspi-
Santos contends that the then Court of Appeals erred –

(1) in holding that the trial judge had no longer jurisdiction to act on her motion of October 8, 1980 for
another extension of 20 days within which to perfect her appeal, as well as when he reconsidered
his previous order denying said motion and giving her instead another 10 days from notice within
which to perfect her appeal; and

(2) inholdingthatthetrialjudgegravelyabusedhisdiscretion in reconsidering his order of October 13,

1980 and in giving petitioner another 10 days within which to perfect her appeal.

The pivotal issue in this petition is whether or not the appeal interposed by Josefa Legaspi-Santos
from the decision of the trial court, dated June 18, 1980, was perfected on time.

It is not denied that the period for appeal expired on October 7, 1980 and that the third motion to
extend the time to perfect petitioner's appeal was filed one (1) day late. However, petitioner argues
that when the lower court issued its Order of December 15, 1980 granting her motion for
reconsideration no substantial rights were affected and there was no intention on her part to delay
the case; and that the plaintiffs and defendants did not object or move to dismiss her appeal until
after four (4) months when the defendants (now private respondents) filed with the appellate court a
petition for certiorari with mandamus attacking the timeliness of her appeal.

In Galima, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, 16 SCRA 140, the rule was laid down that the motion for
extension of the period for filing the record on appeal must be filed before the expiration of the 30-
day period. "The miscomputation by counsel of the appeal period will not arrest the course of the
same, nor prevent the finality of the judgment. Otherwise, the definitive and executory character of
the judgment would be left to the whim of the losing party, when it is to the interest of everyone that
the date when judgments become final should remain fixed and ascertainable." Stated differently,
when the law fixes thirty (30) days, We cannot take it to mean also thirty-one (31) days in one case.
For, if the deadline would be stretched to 31 days in one case, what would prevent its being further
extended to 32 days in another case, and so on, step by step, until the original period is
forgotten/overlooked. We cannot fix a period with the solemnity of a statute, only to ignore it.

In the case at bar, our attention is invited by the private respondents that petitioner has not even filed
the notice of appeal and her appeal bond within the period of 30 days from receipt of the decision.
"The petitioner made a motion for extension of time to perfect her appeal without filing the necessary
notice of appeal and appeal bond and it was only as late as January 16, 1981 or one hundred
twenty-one (121) days after her deadline to perfect appeal when she filed them. (p. 100, Rollo)

In the GALIMA case (supra), penned by Justice J.B.L. Reyes, the Court held that "the perfection of
an appeal within the period prescribed by law is jurisdictional."
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari applied for is DENIED and the decision of the then Court of
Appeals in CA G.R. No. SP-12299 with respect to the case of petitioner Josefa Legaspi-SANTOS is
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Actg. Chairperson), Abad Santos, Plana and Escolin J., concur.