People of the Philippine Islands vs. Pedro Manaba

A rape prosecution cannot be maintained, and a prior judgment therein cannot place the accused in jeopardy, unless the complaint was filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian as required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code; a complaint filed by the chief of police is invalid and does not vest the court with jurisdiction.

Pedro Manaba was charged with rape against Celestina Adapon. The Revised Penal Code, which took effect before May 9, 1932, governed the offense. Article 344, third paragraph, of that Code restricts prosecution of rape to a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian.

On May 9, 1932, in Dumaguete, Oriental Negros, Celestina Adapon alleged that Pedro Manaba raped her. The information later charged that on or about the night of May 9, 1932, Manaba, taking advantage of the darkness of the night and using force, violence, and intimidation, had carnal knowledge with Adapon against her will. On May 10, 1932, the chief of police of Dumaguete subscribed and swore to a criminal complaint charging Manaba with rape. The complaint was filed with the justice of the peace of Dumaguete on June 1, 1932, and the case eventually reached the Court of First Instance. Manaba was tried and convicted, but on motion of his attorney the judgment was set aside and the case dismissed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the subject matter because the complaint had not been filed by the offended party but by the chief of police (criminal case No. 1801).

On August 17, 1932, Adapon subscribed and swore to a complaint charging Manaba with rape. This complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance as criminal case No. 1872 but was referred to the justice of the peace of Dumaguete for preliminary investigation. Manaba waived his right to preliminary investigation but asked for dismissal on the ground that he had previously been placed in jeopardy for the same offense. The justice of the peace denied the motion and remanded the case to the Court of First Instance. The provincial fiscal then filed an information charging Manaba with rape. Manaba renewed his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy, but the motion was denied.

At trial, the Court of First Instance found Manaba guilty and sentenced him as stated in the decision. The Supreme Court, on appeal, stated that the evidence fully sustained the findings of the trial judge.

• Double Jeopardy: Appellant argued that the lower court erred in not sustaining his defense of double jeopardy or legal jeopardy.
• Identification: Appellant argued that the lower court erred in not declaring the evidence of identification of the accused insufficient.
• Inconsistencies and Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Appellant argued that the lower court erred in overlooking the incoherences of the prosecution witnesses and in not declaring that his responsibility had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
• New Trial: Appellant argued that the lower court erred in convicting him of rape and in not granting his motion for new trial.

• Double Jeopardy: Whether the dismissal of the first rape case for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint was filed by the chief of police, rather than the offended party, barred the subsequent prosecution under the plea of double jeopardy.
• Sufficiency of Identification: Whether the evidence sufficiently identified Pedro Manaba as the offender.
• Inconsistencies of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the alleged incoherences of the prosecution witnesses rendered the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Denial of New Trial: Whether the lower court erred in denying the accused's motion for new trial.

• Double Jeopardy: No. The first complaint, filed by the chief of police, was not the complaint of the offended party required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code; the prior judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction, and the accused was never in jeopardy.
• Sufficiency of Identification: No error. The evidence fully sustained the trial judge's findings.
• Inconsistencies of Prosecution Witnesses: No error. The alleged incoherences did not overcome the evidence, which fully sustained the findings.
• Denial of New Trial: No error. The denial was proper because the evidence fully sustained the findings of the trial judge.

• Double Jeopardy: Article 344, third paragraph, 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. The Spanish text of the provision controls because it was the text approved by the Legislature, and the Spanish equivalent of the word "filed" does not appear therein. The first complaint was signed and sworn to by the chief of police of Dumaguete, not by the offended party. It was therefore not a valid complaint in accordance with the law. The judgment of the court was void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the defendant was never in jeopardy. The fact that the judgment was set aside and the case dismissed on the motion of defendant's attorney, who subsequently set up the plea of double jeopardy in the present case, did not alter the result.
• Sufficiency of Identification: The other assignments of error relate to the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court found that the evidence fully sustained the findings of the trial judge.
• Inconsistencies of Prosecution Witnesses: The alleged incoherences of the prosecution witnesses did not render the evidence insufficient; the evidence fully sustained the findings of the trial judge.
• Denial of New Trial: The denial of the motion for new trial was not error because the evidence fully sustained the findings of the trial judge.

• Complaint requirement in rape under Article 344, Revised Penal Code — In rape, prosecution cannot proceed except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian. A complaint by the chief of police is not a valid complaint. Without a valid complaint, the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, and any judgment is void.
• Double jeopardy requires a valid prior jeopardy — For double jeopardy to attach, the first prosecution must have been valid and under a court with jurisdiction. A void judgment rendered without jurisdiction does not place the accused in jeopardy.
• Spanish text controls in interpreting the Revised Penal Code — Where the Spanish and English texts differ, the Spanish text controls because it was the text approved by the Legislature. The English word "filed" does not appear in the Spanish text of Article 344.
• Nocturnity as aggravating circumstance — The lower court should have considered nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance where the accused took advantage of the darkness of the night. The penalty was increased accordingly.
• Married accused not ordered to acknowledge offspring — The accused should not be ordered to acknowledge the offspring, if any, because the record shows that the accused is a married man.

• "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." — This is the controlling statutory rule under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, which the Court applied to invalidate the first complaint.
• "As it was not the complaint of the offended party, it was not a valid complaint in accordance with the law. The judgment of the court was therefore void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the defendant was never in jeopardy." — This is the ratio decidendi on double jeopardy, holding that the chief of police's complaint did not vest the court with jurisdiction.
• "The other assignments of error relate to the sufficiency of the evidence, which in our opinion fully sustains the findings of the trial judge." — This disposes of the evidentiary assignments of error on identification, inconsistencies, and new trial.
• "The accused should not be ordered to acknowledge the offspring, if should there be any, because the record shows that the accused is a married man." — This addresses the civil liability modification, distinguishing acknowledgment from support.

• Article 344, third paragraph, Revised Penal Code — Provides that offenses of seduction, abduction, rape, or acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian. Applied to invalidate the first complaint filed by the chief of police and to hold that the accused was not placed in jeopardy.
• Article 344, Spanish text, Revised Penal Code — The Spanish text is controlling because it was the text approved by the Legislature. The English word "filed" does not appear in the Spanish text, which the Court used to reinforce the complaint requirement.

Street, Abad Santos, Imperial, and Butte, JJ., concur.