G.R. No. L-13946; February 5, 1920
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TOMAS BAUTISTA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Marcela Sempio, a minor, filed a complaint on November 3, 1917, with the justice of the peace court of San Pedro Makati, Rizal, accusing Tomas Bautista of qualified seduction. She alleged that in February 1915, Bautista, a boarder in her parents’ house, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her through a promise of marriage when she was about 12 years old. A child was born from this union in June 1916, whom Bautista recognized. In May 1917, Bautista abandoned her and later married another woman. The provincial fiscal subsequently filed an information in the Court of First Instance charging Bautista with qualified seduction under Article 443 of the Penal Code. After trial, the lower court found Bautista guilty and sentenced him accordingly. On appeal, Bautista’s counsel moved to dismiss the case, arguing that all proceedings were null and void because the prosecution was initiated by a complaint filed by the offended party, Marcela Sempio, who was a minor below 18 years of age and therefore lacked the legal capacity to file a valid complaint. This motion was denied by the trial court.

ISSUE:
Whether the complaint filed by the offended minor, Marcela Sempio, is valid and sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court for the prosecution of the crime of seduction.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The complaint filed by Marcela Sempio was valid. The Court held that under Section 1 of Act No. 1773, which amended the procedure for prosecuting the crimes of adultery and seduction, the offended party has the preferential right to file the complaint, even if she is a minor. This right is not exclusive, as her parents, grandparents, or guardian may also file the complaint if she does not exercise it. The legal incapacity referenced in prior jurisprudence (U.S. vs. Cruz and Reyes) pertains to incapacity arising from legal or physical impediments affecting juridical personality, not merely minority. Since Marcela Sempio was over 12 years of age and there was no other legal impediment to her capacity, her complaint was lawful. Consequently, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. On the merits, the Court found Bautista guilty of simple seduction (not qualified seduction as charged) based on the evidence, and the penalty imposed by the lower court was appropriate. The motion to dismiss was therefore without ground.