GR L 32215; (October, 1988) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-32215 October 17, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Branch V), respondent.

FACTS

An Information for rape was filed against Romulo Postrero by the Assistant City Fiscal of Cebu. The Information expressly incorporated and made an integral part thereof the sworn letter-complaint (Annex “A”) executed by the offended party, Victoria Capillan. The accused filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending the court lacked jurisdiction because the case was not initiated by a complaint filed directly by the offended party in court, as purportedly required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court for crimes like rape. The respondent Judge granted the motion and dismissed the case, relying on the precedent in People v. Santos, which held that a sworn statement prompting a fiscal’s investigation is not the “complaint” required unless filed in court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge erred in dismissing the rape case on the ground that the sworn complaint of the offended party, which was attached to and made part of the Information filed by the fiscal, did not satisfy the requirement for a valid complaint under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal. The Court clarified that the rule in People v. Santos had been modified. The requirement of a complaint under Article 344 is not jurisdictional in the sense of conferring authority upon the court to try the case; such jurisdiction is vested by law. Instead, the complaint is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power to prosecute, intended to protect the offended party’s preference to avoid public scandal. This condition is deemed satisfied when the offended party manifests a clear intent to seek judicial redress. The sworn letter-complaint of Victoria Capillan, containing all essential elements of a complaint under the rules and filed with the City Fiscal, unequivocally demonstrated this intent.
Furthermore, the procedure followed was correct and mandatory under the Cebu City Charter, which vests the City Fiscal with the exclusive power to investigate charges. Requiring the initial complaint to be filed directly in court would contravene this charter. The sworn complaint attached to the Information sufficiently complied with Article 344. The overriding consideration is the offended party’s affirmative act of seeking legal action, which was present here. The case was remanded for trial on the merits.