7/4/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
[No. L-8520. June 29, 1957]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., petitioners, vs.
ENGRACIO SANTOS, ET AL., respondents.
1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; RAPE; COMPLAINT BY
OFFENDED PARTY; WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED WITH
FISCAL NOT SUFFICIENT.—The "salaysay"' or written
statement of the offended party, containing a narration of how the
crime of rape was committed against her, filed with the Fiscal and
not with the court, and which prompted the Fiscal to conduct the
prelimi
799
VOL. 101, JUNE 28, 1957 799
People, et al. vs. Santos, et al.
nary investigation and then to file the information in court, is not
the complaint contemplated and required by Article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code.
2. ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; SIGNING AND SWEARING BY OFFENDED
PARTY OF INFORMATION TOGETHER WITH FlSCAL NOT
SUFFICIENT.—The information, though signed by the offended
party together with the Fiscal, is not equivalent to the complaint
required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reasons
stated in the decision.
PETITION for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of
Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Pelaez & Jalandoni for petitioner P. Bansuelo.
Delgado, Flores & Macapagal for respondent E. Santos.
Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor P. de Castro for
respondent Court of Appeals.
PARÁS, C. J.:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a6d7a8d9d83cefb49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/6
7/4/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
Respondent Engracio Santos was charged in the Court of First
Instance of Rizal with the crime of rape. After trial, said respondent
was convicted and sentenced to the maximum period of reclusión
temporal, from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years, and to pay
the costs. Appealing to the Court of Appeals, respondent filed a
motion to quash and for discharge, on the ground that the trial court
was without jurisdiction, there having been no valid complaint
subscribed and sworn to by the offended party as required by Article
344 of the Revised Penal Code. Said motion was granted. Hence this
appeal by the petitioners.
It is contended that the "salaysay" executed and signed by
petitioner Policarpia Bansuelo on January 12, 1954, before and in
the presence of Fiscal Nicanor P. Nicolas of Rizal and Capt.
Hermogenes Marco of the PCAC, is sufficient in f orm and
substance to serve as the complaint required by Article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code. That the law requiring that the crime of rape,
among others, shall be commenced by a complaint filed by the
offended party is merely "designed for the protection of the offended
800
800 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
People, et al. vs. Santos, et al.
party and her family who may prefer to suffer the outrage in silence
rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial" (Samilin vs.
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, 57 Phil. 298, 304); that when
petitioner Bansuelo executed said "Salaysay", she had manifested
her desire to prosecute the maniacal abuse committed against her;
that said "salaysay" has conformed substantially to the requisites of
a valid complaint; that it cannot be considered as her testimony
during the preliminary investigation because, if it were so, the other
witnesses should have also signed it.
After a thorough examination of the "salaysay" in question, we
agree with the appealed decision that it is a narration of how the
crime of rape was committed against petitioner Bansuelo. As
correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General in his comment on the
motion for reconsideration, such sworn statement "salaysay" is not
the complaint contemplated in and required by sections 1, 2 and 5 of
Rule 106 of the Rules of Court and Article 344 of the Revised Penal
Code.
"The complaint is the process which begins the criminal action, and no other
pleading on the part of the government is necessary, So, if a criminal action,
had been commenced by complaint in appropriate cases, it would be error
for the court to dismiss it, because it was not presented through the
mediation of the prosecution officer." (Moran's Comments on the Rules of
Court, 3d ed. [1950], Vol. II, p. 548).
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a6d7a8d9d83cefb49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/6
7/4/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
The complaint contemplated by the law and the rules is necessarily
that one filed in court. The "salaysay" was filed with the Fiscal and
not with the court; it did not start the criminal proceedings. The
Court of Appeals dwelt lengthily on this point when it said:
"Counsel for the complainant vigorously states in the motion for
reconsideration, as well as in his reply to the comment of the Solicitor
General, that in the instant case there has been substantial compliance with
the law requiring the filing of a complaint by the offended party in order to
confer jurisdiction to the trial court, for it is alleged, on January 13, 1954,
the offended party has
801
VOL. 101, JUNE 29, 1957 801
People, et al. vs. Santos, et al.
subscribed and sworn to before the provincial fiscal a written state ment
"salaysay" wherein she narrated how she was raped by the accused.
* * * * * * *
"Section 1 of Rule 106 provides that:
'All criminal actions must be commenced either by complaint or
information in the name of the People of the Philippines against all persons
who appear to be responsible therefor.'
"Section 2 of Rule 106 defines a complaint as a:
'. . .sworn statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the
offended party, any peace officer or other employee of the government or
governmental institution in charge of the enforcement or execution of the
law violated.'
"And pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 106, a complaint or information is
sufficient:
'. . . if it states the name of the defendant; the designation of the offense
by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the
commission of the offense; and the place wherein the offense was
committed.'
"Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides that:
'The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness,
shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party
or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor in any case, if the offender has
been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.'
"In f ront of these provisions of law, it cannot be certainly pretended
that the aforementioned 'salaysay' or written statement of the
offended party, Exhibit 1, could be considered as the complaint
required by law for the proper initiation of the present case of rape.
"It is argued, however, that said Exhibit 1 should be considered
as the complaint required by law, for on the basis thereof the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a6d7a8d9d83cefb49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/6
7/4/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
provincial fiscal of Rizal conducted the preliminary investigation
and then filed the information at bar. It is further argued that since
under Republic Act No. 732, provincial fiscals have now the same
authority as the Justice of the Peace to conduct preliminary
investigation, said Exhibit 1 should be considered as the complaint
contemplated in the Rules of Court and the
802
802 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
People, et al. vs. Santos, et al.
Revised Penal Code. We -cannot concur to this theory, for according
to Section 2 of Republic Act No. 732, after the provincial fiscal has
conducted an investigation of a case, he has the duty to have
prepared an information or complaint. The pertinent portion of
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 732 provides:
'A provincial fiscal shall have authority to conduct investigation into the
matter of any crime or misdemeanor and have the necessary inf ormation or
complaint prepared or made against persons charged with the commission of
the same.'
And the complaint mentioned in this provision of law is precisely
what is defined and mentioned in the Rules of Court and the Revised
Penal Code. Accordingly, we hold the view that in the case at bar,
after the fiscal has investigated the case, he should have procured the
filing of a complaint by the offended party to properly initiate this
case and not file by himself an information as he did."
It is also argued that in affixing her signature and swearing to the
allegations of the information together with the fiscal, petitioner
Bansuelo had complied with the requirement of a valid complaint.
Respondent Santos has answered this argument by saying that such
fact is not borne out by the records; that such assertion has never
been made before the Court of Appeals; that the opening paragraph
of the information clearly and unmistakably shows that the fiscal
alone accuses respondent Santos of the crime of rape; that the
offended party has never been referred to in the body of the
information as having requested its filing.
We cannot consider the information, although signed by
petitioner Bansuelo together with the fiscal, as equivalent to the
complaint required by law, because said information lacks the oath
of the complainant; the jurat contained therein is the subscribed and
sworn certification of the fiscal that he had conducted the
preliminary investigation in which obviously the offended party had
803
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a6d7a8d9d83cefb49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/6
7/4/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
VOL. 101, JUNE 29, 1957 803
People, et al. vs. Santos, et al.
taken no participation whatsoever; in very unequivocal terms, the
information commences with the statement that "the undersigned
fiscal accuse Engracio Santos of the crime of rape", the offended
party not having been mentioned at all as one of the accusers.
It is not altogether true that to require the offended party to draft
the complaint in legal f orm and terminology,—otherwise the
complaint will be insufficient,—would impose a penalty on
ignorance, and that a person with no legal training will not be able to
institute a criminal action for private crimes; because, as may be
gathered from the provisions of Section 2 of Republic Act 732, it is
the duty of the Provincial Fiscal to prepare the necessary complaint
after having taken down the testimony of the offended party and his
witnesses during the preliminary investigation. Indeed, the law
required this, since the victims of crimes which cannot be
prosecuted except upon their complaint may be ignorant of the law,
to say the least.
This Court has invariably maintained strict compliance with the
jurisdictional requirement of a complaint by the offended party, as
defined in Section 2 of Rule 106 and Article 344 of the Revised
Penal Code. In the case of People vs. Palabao (L-8027, August 31,
1954), we considered insufficient an information filed with the
Provincial Fiscal, wherein the offended party signed at the bottom
thereof and above the signature of the prosecuting officer, the
information even reciting that the Provincial Fiscal charged
defendant with the crime of seduction at the "instance of the
offended party." In the case of People vs. Martinez, (76 Phil. 559),
this Court motu proprio dismissed the case for failure of the
aggrieved party to file the proper complaint for the offense of oral
defamation, although the accused never raised the question on
appeal, thereby showing the necessity of strict compliance with the
legal requirement even at the cost of nullifying all the proceedings
already had in the lower court.
804
804 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Togonon, et al.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. So
ordered, without costs.
Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepción, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.
Decision affirmed.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a6d7a8d9d83cefb49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/6
7/4/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
———————
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017a6d7a8d9d83cefb49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/6
