Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12661)
Facts:
Francisco Aranda was charged in the Court of First Instance of Batangas with acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, allegedly committed on Amparo Villanueva (Crim. case No. 999). After trial, the court convicted him and imposed an indeterminate sentence and costs; he appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court for a question of law.
On April 1, 1954, a criminal complaint for trespass to dwelling with unjust vexation and grave oral slander was filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Taal, Batangas, but it was subscribed and sworn to by the chief of police. On July 20, 1954, an information for acts of lasciviousness was filed in the Court of First Instance, subscribed by the First Assistant Provincial Fiscal, and the offended party’s sworn complaint was neither attached to the record transmitted from the justice of the peace court nor introduced in evidence during trial; only later did the prosecution move (and obtain) the late inclusion of the offended party’s sworn complaint after Aranda had already appealed.
Issues:
- Whether the failure to file and attach the required complaint of the offended party for acts of lasciviousness deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.
- Whether the trial court could, after the perfection of the appeal, allow the prosecution to include the offended party’s sworn complaint in the record to cure the defect.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted Aranda’s motion to quash and held that the information was defective for want of the required complaint by the offended party. It ruled that the Court of First Instance never acquired jurisdiction to try and render judgment absent the offended party’s complaint.
The Court also held that the trial court’s order allowing the late inclusion of the offended party’s sworn complaint after the appeal had been perfected constituted a reversible error because the trial court had already lost jurisdiction over matters litigated on appeal.
Ratio:
The Court emphasized that crimes under the Revised Penal Code such as adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape, or acts of lasciviousness may be prosecuted only upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian. The prosecution’s late attempt to supply the offended party’s sworn complaint could not cure the jurisdictional defect because the complaint was not filed in the justice of the peace court or the Court of First Instance record and was not offered in evidence at trial.
The Court further explained that once the accused perfected his appeal by filing a notice of appeal, the trial court lost jurisdiction except to issue orders for protection and preservation of rights not involving matters litigated on appeal. Allowing the prosecution to attach additional matter after perfection of the appeal effectively allowed additional evidence and therefore required reversal.
Doctrine:
- A prosecution for acts of lasciviousness requires the complaint of the offended party (or those authorized by Article 344, Revised Penal Code); failure to comply is a fatal defect.
- Recitals in an information that it was filed “at the instance of the offended party” do not substitute for the jurisdictional requirement of the sworn complaint.
- After a party perfects an appeal, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case except for protective and preservative orders not involving matters litigated on appeal.
- Permitting the late inclusion of the offended party’s sworn complaint after perfection of the appeal amounts to allowing additional evidence and is reversible error.