Scribd
Upload
332 views1 page

Apolinario Samilin v. The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Apolinario Samilin. Samilin argued that under the revised penal code, which took effect on January 1, 1932, the court no longer had jurisdiction over his rape case because the complaint was filed by the police chief, not the victim or her family. The Court ruled that changes to procedural requirements under the revised code did not need to be applied retroactively. It also found that the requirement for the victim or family to file the complaint was intended to protect the victim's interests, not favor criminals, and dismissing pending cases would not serve that purpose.

Uploaded by

Renzo Jamer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
332 views1 page

Apolinario Samilin v. The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Apolinario Samilin. Samilin argued that under the revised penal code, which took effect on January 1, 1932, the court no longer had jurisdiction over his rape case because the complaint was filed by the police chief, not the victim or her family. The Court ruled that changes to procedural requirements under the revised code did not need to be applied retroactively. It also found that the requirement for the victim or family to file the complaint was intended to protect the victim's interests, not favor criminals, and dismissing pending cases would not serve that purpose.

Uploaded by

Renzo Jamer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Apolinario Samilin v.

The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan


G.R. No. 37376
October 15, 1932
Facts:
The said criminal case was commenced on April 16, 1931, by a complaint signed and filed by the chief of
police of the municipality of San Manuel, Province of Pangasinan, before the justice of the peace, in
conformity with the provisions of Act No. 1773 then in force. In due course, after a finding of probable
cause, the case was sent to the respondent court and on June 11, 1931, the provincial fiscal signed and
filed an information against the accused for the said crime of rape. On June 29, 1931, the petitioner was
duly arraigned, and on his plea of not guilty the trial began on November 17, 1931, with the testimony of
the alleged offended party. The trial was continued and set for hearing on January 13, 1932. On January 1,
1932, the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) took effect. On the resumption of the trial on January 13,
1932, the accused through his counsel moved that the court dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction,
invoking article 22 in connection with articles 344, paragraph 2, 336 and 367 of the Revised Penal Code.
As to prosecutions for rape begun since January 1, 1932, the Revised Penal Code, article 344, paragraph
2, requires that the complaint shall be made by the offended party or her parents, grandparents or guardian
as the case may be.
The argument of the petitioner is that this is a jurisdictional requirement; that said requirement favors the
petitioner; that, therefore, under article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, said requirement must be given a
retroactive effect and relate back to the complaint filed in this case. As said complaint was not signed or
filed by the aggrieved party (in this case a girl of 12 years), or her parents, grand-parents or guardian, the
court was then and is now without jurisdiction to proceed with this prosecution.
Issue:
Is the requirement jurisdictional in the sense that prosecutions in such cases, begun before January 1,
1932, and pending thereafter, must be dismissed if the complaints were not signed and filed by the
offended party or her relatives as aforesaid?
Ruling:
The petition for writ of prohibition is denied with costs against the petitioner. Penal laws that relate to
mere matters of form or procedure are colorless when examined to ascertain whether or not they favor the
accused. They are all designed to secure to the defendant a speedy and impartial trial in accordance with
law, without advantage either to the prosecution or to the defense. Viewed in this light, changes in
procedure introduced by the Revised Penal Code are not to be given retroactive effect in the sense that all
proceedings prior to January 1, 1932, which conform to the law in force at the time, must be overturned
and new proceedings begun. Article 366 was enacted to avoid the havoc which would have resulted if
said changes had been made retroactive. Moreover, it is patent that the provision requiring that the
proceedings must be initiated upon complaint filed by the offended party or her relatives, was enacted out
of consideration for the offended party and her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence
rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial. It would be an insult to the Legislature to hold
that article 344 was enacted with the intention of favoring seducers and rapists.

You might also like