G.R. No. 1760 : April 3, 1905

FACTS:
A complaint for robbery was filed against Irineo Bibal by a private person. This initial complaint was not sworn to. Subsequently, on February 3, 1903, the Provincial Fiscal certified in writing that he found the complaint sufficient and named three additional witnesses for the prosecution. The trial court convicted Bibal of the crime. On appeal, the defense raised issues concerning both the sufficiency of the evidence proving Bibal’s participation and the validity of the unsworn complaint.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the evidence sufficiently proves the defendant’s participation in the robbery.
2. Whether the lack of an oath in the privately filed complaint is a fatal defect that voids the proceedings.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
1. On the question of fact: The Court held that the defendant’s participation in the robbery was sufficiently proved by the evidence. The Court specifically noted that evidence at folio 68 established that the defendant was the leader of the band that committed the crime.
2. On the question of law regarding the complaint: The Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the Provincial Fiscal’s certification and adoption of the complaint converted it into a formal information that no longer required an oath. The Court ruled that, in any event, the lack of an oath was merely a defect in form that did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits of the case. Citing Section 10 of General Orders, No. 58 (the then-existing procedural rules), the Court held that a judgment cannot be set aside for such a formal defect.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED, with costs against the appellant.

CONCURRING JUSTICES:
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ.