“Guardian” Explained

The term “guardian” pertains to one legally appointed by the court, or that the guardian must be a legal or juridical guardian (People vs. De la Cruz, 59 Phil. 531). Thus, an aunt who has the mere temporary custody of a minor during the absence of her father is not a guardian within the meaning of the word as used in Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, a complaint filed by her confers no jurisdiction upon the court (People vs. De la Cruz, supra).

In People vs. Formento, et al, 60 Phil. 484, it was held that when a person affirms under oath that he is the guardian of a minor, and this fact was not denied, his affirmation under such circumstances constituted sufficient evidence that he is the guardian in the legal sense.

Purpose of “Preferential Rule”

The purpose of the “preferential rule” is to give the offended party a preferential right in the filing of the complaint despite her incapacity by reason of nonage if not otherwise incapacitated. In other words, the law places the offended party in the first rank for the filing of the complaint irrespective of her age, except where she is suffering from some legal or physical impediments determinative of the restriction of juridical personality and civil capacity to appear at the trial (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1957 ed., citing U.S. vs. Bautista, 48 Phil, 735).

Sufficient Compliance with Jurisdictional Requirement

When a criminal prosecution for rape was commenced by the filing of a complaint not by the offended party who was a minor, but by her father, it was held that the filing of the complaint was sufficient compliance with the requirement of the law (Tolentino vs. De la Costa, 65 Phil. 97; People vs. Varela, 64 Phil 1066; People vs. Imas, 64 Phil. 419). In other words, the court must have jurisdiction over the case — that the complaint be made by the offended party or her representative legally designed (U.S. vs. Gomez, 12 Phil. 279; Samilin vs. CFI of Pangasinan, supra; U.S. vs. Castaneres, 18 Phil. 218; People vs. Palabas, L-8027, August 31, 1954).

The filing of a complaint by the offended party is the one that confers jurisdiction over the case (U.S. vs. Garcia, 27 Phil. 254; People vs. Pingul, G.R. No. 40829, July 31, 1934 People vs. Co-Hiok, 62 Phil. 581). Thus, if an information for rape is filed by the fiscal without a complaint first being filed and signed by the offended party, no jurisdiction is conferred upon the court to try the case.

In People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665, it was ruled that “when the first complaint filed against the defendant was signed and sworn to by the chief of police, it was not the complaint of the offended party. Therefore, it was not a valid complaint in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the judgment of the court was void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the defendant was never in jeopardy.”

Validity of Complaint

When a complaint for rape that is sufficient in form is filed by the injured party through the investigating Fiscal after the latter had found a prima facie case against the respondent (in a preliminary investigation), the filing of said complaint, though unaccompanied by an information, is sufficient to start the criminal proceedings. This is in accord with Article 344 of the Revised Penal code which decrees that the filing of a complaint for rape by the persons named therein is jurisdictional. In other words, the mere filing of a complaint is sufficient to initiate a valid prosecution, and no information must be filed any longer by the fiscal (People vs. Surbano, 37 SCRA 565).

On his own, the fiscal cannot file an information for rape. Neither can he be required to file one, because that would be doing an act that is unnecessary and ineffectual (U.S. vs. Narvas, 14 Phil. 410).

“The crime of rape being one which is required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and by Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, to be prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the offended party xxx the filing with the court of first instance of a sworn complaint charging such offense, is sufficient to initiate criminal prosecution. As we said in U.S. vs. Narvas, 14 Phil. 410, the action cannot be prosecuted upon the information of the fiscal.”

A foi-tiori, to require the fiscal to file an information would be to call for the doing of an act which the law and the rule themselves consider unnecessary, superfious and ineffectual.’ (People vs. Surbano, supra).

Defective Complaint

Complaint for rape not signed by the offended party is defective, and such fatal defect is not cured by lack of objection interposed thereto. Mere silence or acquiescence of the accused cannot confer jurisdiction on the court to hear and determine the charge of rape in an information not signed by the offended party (People vs. Ose, 62 Phil. 271; People vs. Manaba, supra; People vs. Trinidad, 58 Phil. 163; People vs. Engreso, 49 OG 1505).

Defective complaint in crimes against chastity can be cured only by making the proper correction in the complaint filed by the offended party (People vs. Gila, 18 SCRA 753).

Information which Charges Two Separate Offenses is Defective

An information that charges two separate offenses is defective.

‘That on or about January 17, 1985, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Dick Ocapan conspiring and confederating with his common-law wife, Jocelyn 0. Ocapan, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by meaiis of force and intimidation, have carnal knowledge with one Arlene Yapo, a minor and who was working as househelper, of the said accused; that thereafter, iii order to prevent the said Arlen Yapo from reporting to the proper authorities, detained and deprive her of her liberty for more than five (5) days.”

The foregoing information charges rape and serious illegal detention. Hence, it is defective.
Where two or more offenses are charged in a single information and the accused failed to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and impose on him the penalty for each and every one of them setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each case. (People vs. Catan, 205 SCRA 235)

Change in the Allegations Does Not Divest the Court of Jurisdiction

The right and power of the court to try the accused for the crime of rape attaches upon the filing of the complaint, and a change in the allegations thereof as to the manner of committing the crime should not operate to divest the court of jurisdiction. Thus —

“We find that His Honor did not correctly apply our ruling in the case of People vs. Oso. In that case the complaint filed was for forcible abduction, while the information filed by the Fiscal was for rape. Inasmuch as the crime of rape is different from the crime of forcible abduction alleged in the complaint, said complaint could not serve as a basis for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the crime actually committed — rape. In the case at bar, however, the complaint was for rape, and this gave the court jurisdiction to try that case. The power of jurisdiction of the court is not over the crime of rape when committed on a minor and demented girl, but over rape, irrespective of the manner in which the same may have been committed (People vs. Bangalao, 94 Phil. 355)