The Supreme Court denied the petition filed by Wilson Gue and affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution, which upheld the Regional Trial Court's order suspending the proceedings and remanding the adultery case for preliminary investigation.
In its decision, the Court restated the rule that to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest, it is indispensable that the arresting officers have personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense.
The Case
Wilson Gue (Wilson) and Eileen Cagalingan Gue (Eileen) were married in 1994 and had two children. Sometime in 2007, Eileen met Philippe Roland Codes (Codes) at Fitness First, where Codes was her physical therapist and fitness trainer. During this time, Wilson suspected Eileen and Codes to have an illicit relationship.
According to Wilson, he confirmed their relationship in 2009. He alleged that Eileen rented a private condominium unit under Codes's name, located at Unit S, 3rd Floor, Mercedes Street, Barangay Maybunga, Pasig City. On August 24, 2009, Wilson filed a Complaint for Adultery against Eileen and Codes with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
In the afternoon of September 4, 2009, Wilson received information that Eileen's car was parked on Mercedes Street. He said he saw his wife and Codes arrive, then followed them inside Unit S. He contacted NBI Senior Agent Arnold Rosales (Rosales) for assistance. The NBI operatives arrived at around 5:30 in the afternoon. After verifying with the Land Transportation Office that Eileen is the registered owner of the parked Toyota RAV 4, the NBI operatives and Wilson proceeded to the condo unit and entered through the unlocked door.
Eileen and Codes were arrested by the NBI operatives. Eileen resisted arrest while Codes admitted to having a four-month relationship with her. On September 8, 2009, they underwent an inquest investigation, and an Information was filed charging them with adultery, docketed as Criminal Case No. 107014 and raffled to Branch 70 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasig City.
Eileen filed a Motion to Quash the Information or, alternatively, for the case to be remanded for preliminary investigation; Codes joined the Motion. The Metropolitan Trial Court denied the Motion on February 5, 2010, and denied reconsideration on March 8, 2010. Eileen then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Regional Trial Court.
The Issue
Whether the arrest of Eileen and Codes fell under the circumstances of a lawful warrantless arrest, which would validate the inquest investigation and the proceedings that followed.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. Its dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The June 29, 2015 Decision and July 26, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 124844 are AFFIRMED."
The Court also ordered, pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, that a copy of the Decision be furnished the President of the Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Justice, and that copies be furnished the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for their proper disposition.
By the Numbers
- 1994 — year Wilson and Eileen were married
- 2007 — year Eileen met Codes at Fitness First
- August 24, 2009 — Wilson filed the Complaint for Adultery with the NBI
- September 4, 2009 — date of the alleged incident and arrest
- 5:30 in the afternoon — time the NBI operatives met with Wilson
- September 8, 2009 — inquest investigation and filing of Information
- Criminal Case No. 107014 — docket number before the Metropolitan Trial Court
- CA-G.R. SP No. 124844 — Court of Appeals case number
- G.R. No. 226171 — Supreme Court case number
The Court's Reasoning
The Regional Trial Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the Metropolitan Trial Court's part and held that the absence of a preliminary investigation did not affect the court's jurisdiction nor render the Information invalid. Nonetheless, it ruled that the inquest investigation was void since the arrest did not fall under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, noting that an inquest applies only in cases of lawful warrantless arrest. It ordered the proceedings suspended and the case remanded to the Office of the City Prosecutor for preliminary investigation.
The Court observed that the present state of laws continues to perpetuate discrimination particularly against women. Noting an apparent inequality in the penal laws on adultery and concubinage, it stated that this was an opportune moment to signal to the Legislature the incongruity between domestic law and the international obligation to eliminate discrimination against women, and referred the matter to Congress and the President through the Department of Justice pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court added that issues concerning the sexual relations between consenting adults are, at their core, private matters, and that the responsibility of ensuring the fundamental equality of women and men before the law is a constitutional mandate imposed on both the Legislature and the Judiciary.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 226171.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.