G.R. No. L-20374; April 28, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SYLVIA ABONITALLA DE RAVIDAS, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Defendant-appellee Sylvia Abonitalla de Ravidas was charged with grave oral defamation in the Municipal Court of Cagayan de Oro upon a sworn complaint signed by the offended party, Generosa Cariaga. After pleading not guilty and a trial on the merits, the lower court dismissed the case “for lack of personality on the part of the complainant Generosa Cariaga to sign the complaint.” The lower court based its dismissal on Article 7, section 24, paragraph (f) of Republic Act No. 521 (the City Charter of Cagayan de Oro), which mandates the City Attorney to investigate charges and prepare the necessary information or complaints. The court reasoned that since the defamation imputed a crime prosecutable de oficio (not a private crime), the charge could only be prosecuted by an information signed by the City Attorney, and the offended party had no legal personality to file the complaint. The prosecution, through the Solicitor-General, appealed the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the criminal case for grave oral defamation on the ground that the offended party lacked the personality to sign the complaint, considering the crime imputed is prosecutable de oficio.

RULING

Yes, the lower court erred. The judgment of dismissal is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that neither the City Charter of Cagayan de Oro nor Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code prohibits the commencement of an action for defamation (which imputes a crime prosecutable de oficio) upon a written complaint of the offended party. The provision in the City Charter imposing a duty on the City Attorney is not restrictive and does not bar the victim from filing a complaint. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code only requires that a complaint be expressly filed by the offended party when the defamation imputes a crime that cannot be prosecuted de oficio (e.g., adultery, seduction). This requirement does not apply when the imputed crime is prosecutable de oficio. The procedure followed—a written complaint by the offended party and prosecution under the control of the City Attorney’s office—conforms with Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the accused never raised any objection to the sufficiency or legality of the complaint during arraignment or trial, thus any technical objection was deemed waived. The lower court should have decided the case on its merits.