G.R. No. L-40842 September 30, 1982
THE HON. BENJAMIN A. G. VEGA, Presiding Judge, Branch IV, City Court of Olongapo, and the CITY FISCAL OF OLONGAPO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE DOMINGO D. PANIS, Presiding Judge, Branch III, Court of First Instance of Zambales Stationed at Olongapo City and LEOPOLDO LAZO, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for Attempted Rape filed by Felicitas Vargas against Leopoldo Lazo with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zambales. The CFI judge referred the complaint to the Olongapo City Court for preliminary investigation. After investigation, the City Court’s Executive Judge found probable cause only for Acts of Lasciviousness, ordered the accused’s arrest, and directed the records transmitted to the City Court Clerk for raffle and trial. The case was assigned to petitioner Judge Vega’s branch. The City Fiscal subsequently filed an information for Acts of Lasciviousness. After the accused pleaded not guilty, the fiscal amended the information to allege aggravating circumstances. The trial proceeded, and after the prosecution rested, the accused moved to dismiss, arguing the City Court lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a complaint for Acts of Lasciviousness signed by the offended party or her relatives as required for private crimes.
The City Court denied the motion, admitting additional evidence including the original Attempted Rape complaint. The accused then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CFI, which ruled in his favor. The CFI nullified all proceedings in the City Court, holding it never acquired jurisdiction because no valid complaint for the private offense of Acts of Lasciviousness was filed. The petitioners, Judge Vega and the City Fiscal, elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether the City Court of Olongapo acquired jurisdiction to try the accused for Acts of Lasciviousness based on the information filed by the City Fiscal, notwithstanding the absence of a separate complaint signed by the offended party.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the CFI decision, and ordered the City Court to proceed with the trial. The Court held that the City Court validly acquired jurisdiction. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between the jurisdiction of a court and the authority to initiate prosecution for certain crimes. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. Acts of Lasciviousness, being a public crime under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, can be prosecuted de oficio by the state through the fiscal’s information. The requirement for a sworn complaint under Article 344 applies only to crimes of rape, seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness when they are private in nature (i.e., not attended by certain aggravating circumstances like force, intimidation, or when the victim is under 12). Since the amended information alleged the crime was committed in the victim’s dwelling, it constituted a public crime, making a sworn private complaint unnecessary to confer jurisdiction. The fiscal’s information was therefore sufficient to commence the action. The Court clarified that the cited case of U.S. vs. Garcia, regarding concubinage (a purely private crime), was inapplicable. The CFI thus erred in annulling the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.