G.R. No. 163553 - Yun Kwan Bung vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp.

The case involves the People of the Philippines as plaintiff and appellant versus Percival Gilo as defendant and appellant.
The offended party initially filed a complaint before the Justice of the Peace Court of Guimbal, Iloilo, alleging the commission of acts of lasciviousness.
The complaint detailed that on or about December 11, 1957, the accused, allegedly under the influence of alcohol and intimidation, intentionally and maliciously touched the breast and face of Verna Genzola against her will, causing her shame, embarrassment, and loss of self-respect.

Although the complaint was labelled as “Acts of Lasciviousness,” it failed to include the essential allegation of “lewd design” required for crimes against chastity.
The absence of this key element meant that, substantively, the case did not properly charge the offense intended.
Instead, without the allegation of lewd design, the complaint more accurately described an act amounting to unjust vexation.

Following the complaint, the Justice of the Peace Court conducted the preliminary investigation and forwarded the case to the Court of First Instance.
The provincial fiscal then filed an information accusing the accused of a similar crime of acts of lasciviousness, now asserting that the act was committed “with lewd design.”
During trial, after the prosecution rested its case, the appellant moved to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the defective initial complaint.
The Court of First Instance deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss until after the conclusion of the trial.

The trial court proceeded with the proceedings and subsequently rendered a decision treating the act as one of unjust vexation rather than acts of lasciviousness.
The appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of P20.00 based on the conviction for unjust vexation.
The appellant then interposed the present appeal contesting the lower court’s decision and its jurisdiction to try the case.

Whether the absence of the specific allegation of “lewd design” in the initial complaint deprived the lower court of proper jurisdiction to try the case as acts of lasciviousness.
Whether the charge as labeled (acts of lasciviousness) can be validated by the mere use of general terms such as “feloniously and criminally,” despite the omission of the necessary element.

Whether the act committed, which lacked the requisite lewd design, should be charged as unjust vexation rather than as acts of lasciviousness.
The legal significance of correctly classifying the offense based on the actual contents of the complaint versus its title.