Donio-Teves vs. Vamenta, Jr.

In prosecutions for private crimes, a letter-complaint suffices to initiate preliminary investigation by the fiscal, but a formal sworn complaint complying with Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code must be filed with the court to confer jurisdiction. The death of the offended party after the filing of the complaint does not terminate the criminal proceedings because the participation of the offended party is essential only for the initiation, not the maintenance, of the action.

• Julian L. Teves filed a letter-complaint dated July 13, 1972 for adultery against his wife Milagros Donio-Teves and Manuel Moreno before the City Fiscal of Dumaguete, which was thumbmarked and sworn to before respondent City Fiscal Pablo E. Cabahug.
• Attached to the letter-complaint were affidavits of witnesses Elisa Chiu, Milagros Quiteves, and Lorenzo Regala-Lacsina.
• The City Fiscal conducted a preliminary investigation where Teves testified, identified his wife as one of the accused, and was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
• Accused filed a Motion to Dismiss assailing the fiscal's jurisdiction on the ground that no proper complaint was filed; the motion was denied, as was a motion for reconsideration.
• Complainant filed a new letter-complaint dated January 16, 1973 attaching his affidavit, stating it was in amplification of the first complaint.
• An Information was filed before the Court of First Instance on March 26, 1973 with a complaint thumbmarked by Julian L. Teves, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1097.
• Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash challenging jurisdiction over the offense and persons of the accused, and the authority of the City Fiscal to file the information; the motion was denied on December 3, 1973, and the motion for reconsideration was denied on January 14, 1974.
• Complainant Julian L. Teves died on April 14, 1974 while the petition was pending before the Supreme Court.

• The letter-complaint filed with the City Fiscal was insufficient to confer jurisdiction because adultery is a private offense requiring a valid complaint filed by the offended party under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 2 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court.
• The City Fiscal lacked authority to conduct preliminary investigation and file the Information due to the absence of a proper complaint subscribed and sworn to by the complainant as required by law.
• The death of the complainant during the pendency of the case extinguished criminal liability and warranted the dismissal of the criminal proceedings.

• The respondents maintained that the complaints filed were sufficient to comply with the jurisdictional requirements for prosecuting adultery as a private crime.
• The respondents argued that the criminal action, once initiated by the filing of a proper complaint, proceeds to final judgment regardless of the death of the complainant, as the State is also an offended party in crimes against chastity.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a letter-complaint filed with the City Fiscal constitutes a sufficient complaint to initiate preliminary investigation for the crime of adultery under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
  • Whether the death of the offended party during the pendency of the criminal action extinguishes criminal liability or terminates the proceedings.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • A letter-complaint is sufficient to initiate preliminary investigation by the fiscal for private crimes; the formal complaint required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code is the one filed with the court, not the one for preliminary investigation. The second complaint dated January 16, 1973 and the complaint filed with the court on March 26, 1973 both complied with the requirements of stating the name of the defendants, designation of the offense, acts complained of, name of the offended party, approximate time, and place of commission as required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
  • The death of the offended party does not extinguish criminal liability under Articles 89 and 94 of the Revised Penal Code. The participation of the offended party is essential only for the initiation of the criminal action, not for its maintenance. Once the complaint is filed, the action proceeds to final judgment regardless of the death of the complainant, as every violation of penal laws results in the disturbance of public order and safety which the State is committed to uphold and protect.

• Private Crimes — Felonies which cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party, such as adultery, concubinage, and seduction. While initiated by the private complainant, these offenses also offend the State and public order; once initiated by the filing of a complaint, the action proceeds just as in any other crime and is beyond the control of the complainant.
• Complaint for Preliminary Investigation vs. Complaint for Court — For private crimes, a letter-complaint suffices to initiate preliminary investigation by the fiscal, but the complaint required to confer jurisdiction over the offense and the persons of the accused is the formal sworn complaint filed with the court, not the fiscal's office.
• Effect of Death of Complainant in Private Crimes — The death of the offended party after the filing of the complaint does not extinguish criminal liability or terminate the criminal proceedings, because the complainant's participation is required only to initiate, not to maintain, the action.

• "The complaint referred to which is required by way of initiating the criminal prosecution of crimes which cannot be prosecuted de oficio is, however, that one filed with the Court and not that which is necessary to start the required preliminary investigation by the fiscal's office."
• "The participation of the offended party is essential not for the maintenance of the criminal action but solely for the initiation thereof."
• "The term 'private crimes' in reference to felonies which cannot be prosecuted except upon complaint filed by the aggrieved party, is misleading. Far from what it implies, it is not only the aggrieved party who is offended in such crimes but also the State."
• "Once a complaint is filed, the will of the offended party is ascertained and the action proceeds just as in any other crime... once the choice is made manifest, the law will be applied in full force beyond the control of, and in spite of the complainant, his death notwithstanding."

• People vs. Santos, 101 Phil. 798 — Cited for the distinction that the complaint required to initiate criminal prosecution for private crimes is the one filed with the court, not the preliminary investigation complaint filed with the fiscal.
• People vs. Palabao, G.R. No. L-80027, August 31, 1954 — Cited for the principle of strict adherence to jurisdictional requirements of complaints in private crimes.
• People vs. Martinez, 76 Phil. 599 — Cited for the court's authority to motu proprio dismiss cases for failure to file proper complaints in private crimes.
• Samilin vs. CFI of Pangasinan, 57 Phil. 298 — Cited for the rationale that the complaint requirement is imposed out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than undergo public trial.
• People vs. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11 — Cited for the principle that the spirit rather than the letter of the law should prevail in determining compliance with complaint requirements.

• Article 344, Revised Penal Code — Defines private crimes requiring complaint by offended party for adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness.
• Section 5, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Prescribes the essential contents of a complaint or information, including the name of the accused, designation of the offense, acts or omissions complained of, name of the offended party, and approximate time and place of commission.
• Articles 89 and 94, Revised Penal Code — Provisions on total and partial extinguishment of criminal liability, which do not include death of the offended party.

• Justice Aquino — Concurred in the result, stating that the motion to quash was obviously dilatory and the instant petition should not have been given due course.