GR L 8520; (June, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8520. June 29, 1957.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. ENGRACIO SANTOS, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Engracio Santos was charged with rape in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, convicted, and sentenced. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Santos filed a motion to quash and for discharge, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because there was no valid complaint subscribed and sworn to by the offended party as required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals granted the motion. The petitioners (People and Policarpia Bansuelo) appealed, contending that a “salaysay” (sworn statement) executed by the offended party, Policarpia Bansuelo, before the Provincial Fiscal and a PCAC captain, was sufficient to serve as the required complaint. They argued the law is for the protection of the offended party, and by executing the “salaysay,” she manifested her desire to prosecute. They also noted the offended party signed the information together with the fiscal.
ISSUE
Whether the “salaysay” (sworn statement) executed by the offended party before the Provincial Fiscal, or the information she signed together with the fiscal, constitutes the complaint required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and the Rules of Court to confer jurisdiction on the court in a rape case.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The “salaysay” is merely a narration of how the crime was committed and is not the complaint contemplated by law. The complaint required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Sections 1, 2, and 5 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court is a sworn statement charging a person with an offense, which initiates the criminal action in court. The “salaysay” was not filed in court to commence the proceedings. Furthermore, the information signed by the offended party together with the fiscal cannot be considered the equivalent of the required complaint because it lacks her oath as a complainant; the jurat is only for the fiscal’s certification of his preliminary investigation, and the information explicitly states only the fiscal accuses the defendant. The Court emphasized strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirement of a complaint filed by the offended party is necessary, and it is the duty of the Provincial Fiscal, after investigation, to have the necessary complaint prepared by the offended party to properly initiate the case.