G.R. No. 5849
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GABINA DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellant.
September 27, 1910

FACTS:
The provincial fiscal of La Laguna filed a complaint against Gabina de la Cruz for injurias graves (grave insults). De la Cruz was accused of publicly uttering derogatory words against Ramon Santos, the municipal president: “Rayo de presidente, que quieres ser presidente para apoderarte de la propiedad de otros” (You are a queer sort of president, for you wish to be president in order to grab other people’s property). The incident occurred during a private property dispute when Santos was intervening as his workman built a fence on what Santos believed was his property line, which Gabina de la Cruz disputed. De la Cruz created a disturbance and uttered the words as policemen attempted to take her to the presidencia. The record shows that no complaint was made by the alleged offended party, Ramon Santos, himself. Under the Penal Code, insults against private parties were private crimes, while those against authorities were public crimes if committed during or on the occasion of their functions. Act No. 1773 made all injuria crimes public but included a proviso requiring a complaint from the aggrieved person for insults “committed against persons other than public officials or employees.”

ISSUE:
Was the prosecution for injurias graves validly instituted by the provincial fiscal without a complaint from the offended party, considering the nature of the insult and the provisions of Act No. 1773 ?

RULING:
The Supreme Court declared all proceedings null and void and dismissed the complaint.

1. Nature of the Insult: The Court found that the insult was directed at Ramon Santos in his private capacity as a property owner, not in the exercise of his functions as municipal president or on the occasion thereof. The words were uttered during a private dispute over land boundaries, and merely alluding to his office was not tantamount to showing disrespect to him as a public official while he was performing his duties. Thus, the crime was considered an insult against a private party, though aggravated by the offended person’s position.
2. Applicability of Act No. 1773 : While Act No. 1773 generally deemed all crimes of injuria as public crimes, it contains a critical proviso that “no prosecution for the crimes of . . . or injuria committed against persons other than public officials or employees shall be instituted except upon the complaint . . . of the aggrieved person.”
3. Lack of Aggrieved Party’s Complaint: Since the insult was against Ramon Santos in his private capacity, it fell under the proviso of Act No. 1773 . Consequently, the prosecution could only be instituted upon the complaint of the aggrieved person. As Ramon Santos did not file a complaint, the prosecution initiated by the provincial fiscal was “entirely without foundation,” and the proceedings were “null and void” for being contrary to the express prohibition of the law.