es PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES, be specifically alleged using the language of the law'”? or by being ‘more accurate in the terminology employed therein." In a litany of cases, the accused escaped the severe penalty prescribed by law for the offense proved because of the defects in the complaint or information.'"* SEC. 5. Whoimust prosecute’criminal actions; — All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor) may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court. When so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority shall cease upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court. (as ended by Circular No. 39-02 of the Office of the urt Administrator dated Aug. 21, 2002) People vs. Alfeche, 294 SCRA 352, 379 [1998]; People vs. Manhuyod, ;R. No, 124694, May 20, 1998; People vs. Ramos, 296 SCRA 559 [1998]. People vs. Fuertes, 296 SCRA 602, 606 [1998]. see People vs. Madraga, 344 SCRA 628 [2000]; People vs. Ramilla, 310 RA 499 [1999]; People vs. Ilav, 296 SCRA 658 [1998]; People vs. Bali- ita, 340 SCRA 450 [2000]; People vs. Delamar, 350 SCRA 707 [200156 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED, The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except) upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both are alive, nor, in any case, if the offended party has consented to the offense or pardoned the offenders. The offenses of Seduction, abduction and 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 any of them. If the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she can file the complaint, and she has no known parents, grandparents or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf. ‘The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution of the offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness independently of her parents, grandparents, or guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so. Where the offended party, who is a minor, fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents, or guardian may file the same. The right to file the action granted to parents, grandparents, or guardian shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised successively in the order herein provided, except as stated in the preceding paragraph. No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of any of the offenses mentioned above shall be brought exceptat the instance of and upon complaint filed by the offended party. (5a) The prosecution for violation of special laws shall be governed by the provisions thereof. (n)37 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES ANNOTATIONS: The term “prosecutor” is interchangeably used with the terms as Seen linea. Te pores titles of provincial and city fiscal and their assistants are abolished.'!* The crime of rape is excluded from the private crimes, which require the filing of a complaint by the offended party. The reason is that rape is now classified as a crime against persons!" Criminal prosecution before trial courts. ‘Procedural law, mandates that all criminal actions, commenced by a complaint or an information, shall be prosecuted under the) and. control of the prosecutor.'” axiomatic that the prosecution of @ criminal case is the responsibility of the government prosecutor and must always be under his control. This is true even if a private prosecutor is allowed to assist him and actually handles the examination of the witnesses and the introduction of other idence.'"® The rationale behind the rule is toyprevent malicious or! d prosecutions by private persons.'"” rs of the prosecutor. of the provincial or city prosecutors are: (a) to gate or cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, demeanors and violations of penal laws and ordinances within ir respective jurisdictions, and have the necessary information or prepared or made and filed against the persons accused; ‘of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors of municipal or city ordinances, in the courts at the 2, Title III, Adm. Code of 1987. 353. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 218040, Apr. 17, 2017; Leviste 3.R. No. 182677, Aug. 3, 2010; Sec. 5, Rule 110. ‘ediate Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 54, 58-59 [1989]. s. CA, 331 SCRA 1, 10-11 [2000]; People vs. Yecyec, ‘alapuddin vs. CA, G.R. No. 184681,58 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED, province or city and therein discharge all the duties incident to the institution of criminal actions.'”° The power of the prosecutor to prosecute the criminal action includes the followin; 1. To determine the Casas to be’ filed and how the legal and factual elements in the case shall be utilized as components of the information;'?! 2. The right to determine who" shall/be’ prosecuted! and the corollary right to decide whom not to prosecute;'? 3. To determine what degree of complicity to the commission of a crime a person should be charged with, whether as principal, accomplice or accessory;)? 4, The discretion not to file a criminal informati 5. To turn over the active conduct of the trial of criminal cases to a private prosecutor under his direction and control'”* in the exercise of his discretion, but he may, at any time, take over the actual conduct of the trial;!”° 1s eA Td RE 120 Sec, 9, RA 10071. 121 People vs. Perez, 296 SCRA 17, 35 [1998]; Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga del Norte vs. CA, 348 SCRA 714, 726 [2000] 122 Mapa. Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 231 SCRA 783, 802 [1994]. 123 people vs. Pajo, 348 SCRA 492, 522 [2000]. 124 Hogerty vs. CA, G.R. No. 154920, Aug. 15, 2003; D.M. Consunji vs Esguerra, 260 SCRA 746 [1996]; Tam Wing Tak vs. Makasiar, 350 SCRA 475, 486 [2001]; Quiso vs. Sandiganbayan, 149 SCRA 108, 112 [1987 Pono vs. NLRC, 275 SCRA 611, 617 [1997]; People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748 [1967]. 125 People vs. Beriales, 70 SCRA 361, 366-367 [1976]. 126 People vs. Tan, 549 SCRA 489, 499[2008]; Mobilia Products, Inc. ¥S ‘Umezawa, 452 SCRA 736 [2005].59. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES, 6. To determine who among the witnesses to a crime should testify in court'’” and what éyidence should be presented! during the tial; and 7. The determination of who should be used as a Staté! witness to bolster the successful prosecution of eriminal offenses." Presence of the public prosecutor. eonsntle Rudiments of due process require that the publi¢ prosecutor must? teeters $ : f ‘opportunity to intervene proceedings: The action of the judge in proceeding with the arraignment of the accused without the participation of the government prosecutor has been declared erroneous. '*" In a case, the eity fiscal did not appear in all of the trial court's proceedings, from the arraignment to the promulgation of the decision of conviction, due to the persistent failure and refusal of the city fiscal to submit to the trial court its resolution on the re- investigation of the criminal case, and it was only the private who handled the case without the authority and active participation of the prosecuting fiscal. The Supreme Court held: “Besides, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, what is more deplorable, and which renders patently irregular all the proceedings taken in this case, was the total absence of the City Fiscal and/or any of his assistants or special counsel on December 13, 1974, when the accused were arraigned and when the private prosecutor presented evidence and rested “the case supposedly for the People. eople vs. Tan, 314 SCRA 413, 420 [1999]; People vs. Chavez, 278 ‘A 230, 241 [1997]; People vs. Magdamit, 279 SCRA 423, 432 [1997]; je vs. Daraman, 294 SCRA 27, 1998]. ople vs. Amamangpang, 291 SCRA 638, 648-649 [1998]; People vs. 207 SCRA 569 [1992]; People vs. De los Reyes, 229 SCRA 439, aple vs. Espatiola, 271 SCRA 689, 708 [1997]. nueva vs, Almazan, 328 SCRA 230, 237 [2000].60 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED “x x x While there is nothing in the rule of practice and procedure in criminal cases which denies the right of the fiscal, in the exercise of sound discretion, to turn over the active conduct of the trial to a private prosecutor, nevertheless, his duty to direct and control the prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be present during the proceedings. x x x”""! But in another case, during the arraignment of accused before the lower court (CFI of Rizal stationed in Quezon City, Branch XVIII in Crim. Case No. Q-2837), it was presumed that the prosecution was personally represented by a prosecuting fiscal since there was no showing in the records of the case of his absence thereto. Then, on the first day of the trial on the merits of said case, Fiscal Modesto C, Juanson personally appeared and represented the prosecution, Although the transcript of the said proceedings was silent on the matter, the presence of Fiscal Juanson in court in effect gave authority to the private prosecutor to handle the prosecution under his (fiscal’s) direct control and supervision. And this implied authority granted by the said prosecuting fiscal to the private prosecutor continued for the succeeding proceedings.'*? Authority of private prosecutor. A private party does not have the legal personality to prosecute the criminal aspect of the case.'*? Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.'™ Such counsel is called ‘private prosecutor.’ The intervention of the private offended party, through counsel, and his prosecution of the case shall be under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor until the termination of the case.'*° 1 People vs. Beriales, 70 SCRA 361, 366-367 [1976], 32 Bravo vs. CA, 208 SCRA 531, 540 [1992]. 193 Valderrama vs. People, G.R. No. 220054, Mar. 27, 2017; Laude vs Ginez-Jabalde, 775 SCRA 408 [2015]. Sec, 16, Rule 110. 35 Mobilia Products, Inc. vs. Umezawa, G.R. No. 149357, Mar. 4, 2005.61 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES Se ee the prosecution of a criminal case is still the responsibility of the government prosecutor and must always be under his control.'* However, the government prosecutor, in the exercise of sound discretion, may tum over the active conduct of the trial to a private prosecutor; but nevertheless, his duty to direct and control the prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be present during the proceedings.” Pleadings and motions filed by the private party must carry the conformity of the public prosecutor.'** Under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (hereinafter referred to as Revised Guidelines), in cases where only the civil liability is being prosecuted by a private prosecutor, the head of the prosecution office must issue in favor of the private prosecutor a written authority to try the case even in the absence of the public prosecutor. The written authority must be submitted to court prior to the presentation of evidence by the private prosecutor in accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 110. With this authority on record, the court may set the trial in the case and in other cases tried by private prosecutors with delegated authority on separate days when the presence of the public prosecutor may be dispensed with." ‘When prosecutor’s presence not required. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the wal of the court. When so authorized to prosecute the criminal , the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn." s vs. IAC, 179 SCRA $4, 58-59 [1989]. le vs, Beriales, 70 SCRA 361, 366-367 [1976]. iderrama vs. People, G.R. No. 220054, Mar. 27, 2017; Laude vs. labalde, 775 SCRA 408 [2015]. No. 15-06-10-SC, Apr. 25, 2017. 5, Rule 110, as amended.i p RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED 62 REVISE gts Te ee Conditions of private prosecutor’s authority. The authority of the private prosecutor action under this section is subject to the foll (1) The public prosecutor has a heavy work schedule, or there is no public prosecutor assigned in the province or citys (2) The private prosecutor is authorized by the Regional Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Prosecutor; (3) The authority must be in writing; (4) The authority of the private prosecutor must be approved by the court; (5) The private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case until the end of trial unless the authority is withdrawn or otherwise revoked by the Regional Prosecutor, Provincial or City Prosecutor, and (6) In case of the withdrawal or revocation of the authority of the private prosecutor, the same must be approved by the court.!4! to prosecute a criminal lowing conditions: Role of complainant. In the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution.'*? The witnesses, even if they are the complaining witnesses, cannot act for the prosecutor in the handling of the case. They have no personality to move for its dismissal or revival as they are not even parties thereto nor do they represent the parties to the action. Their only funetion is to testify. In a criminal prosecution, the plaintiff is represented by the government prosecutor, or one acting under his authority, and by no one else.'* Criminal prosecution before '* DOJ-Memo Circ. No. 25, Apr. 26, 2002. = ee nee 339 SCRA 366, 372-374 [2000] citing People vs. santiago, RA 143 [1989]; JCLV Realty & Devt. Corp. vs. Mangalis G.R. No. 236618, Aug. 27, 2020. # A "© Caes vs. IAC, 179 SCRA 54, 58-59 [1989],| 6 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES the Sandiganbayan, For criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it is the Office of the Special Prosecutor, as an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman, which exercises investigatory and prosecutory powers." The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman, have the power to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, The Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts'’® except n the Ombudsman commits grave abuse of discretion.'‘” prosecution before me Court and Court Is; exceptions. sriminal prosecutions before the Court of Appeals and the Court, the authority to represent the State is solely vested in ¢ of the Solicitor General." The general rule is that it is Solicitor General who is authorized to bring or defend alf of the People or the Republic of the Philippines brought before the Supreme Court or the Court of, mns filed in the name of the Republic of the itiated by the Solicitor General will be summarily (0, 388 SCRA 307, 323 (2002). 6770. x10, 298 SCRA 196, 214-215 [1998]; Acufia vs. Deputy zon, G.R. No. 144692, Jan. 31, 2005 |. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 156427, Jan. 20., 2006; man, 389 SCRA 143, 151 [2002]; Degamo vs. Office No. 212416, Dec. 5, 2018, .R. No. 147832, Dee. 6, 2006. nd Trust Co. vs. Tonda, 338 SCRA 254, 265 [2000].64 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOT 4, eee eoammnnw—' dismissed.'® Therefore, it behooved the petitioner to implead People of the Philippines as respondent in the Court of Appeals cay to enable the Solicitor General to comment on the petition. However, in all cases elevated from the Sandiganbayan to thy Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its speci prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except jy cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14, issued in 1986.'? In these excepted cases, the Presidentig, Commission on Good Government is empowered to investigate ang prosecute all cases investigated by it.'*? A private prosecutor in a criminal case has no authority to act for the People of the Philippines before the Supreme Court. It is the Government's counsel, the Solicitor General who appears in criminal cases or incidents before the Supreme Court.'** Ifa criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.'*5 The requirement is deemed complied with and the procedural infirmity cured: (1) where the petition before the Supreme Court was filed by the provincial prosecutor and assistant provincial prosecutor but the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion stating that *° Republic vs. Parisala, 118 SCRA 370 [1982]. ' People vs. Go, G.R. No. 201644, Sept. 24, 2014 citing Vda. d guerra vs. Risos, 585 Phil. 490, 497 (2008); Cobarrubias vs. People, Phil. 984, 990 [2009]. 8249; see Pacuribot vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 247414-18, July 6 . 1, E.0. 14, $, 1986, ple vs. Dacudao, 170 SCRA 489 [1989]. iano vs. Angeles, 339 SCRA 366, 372-374 [2000] citing People ¥5 ig0, 174 SCRA 143 [1989]; Piccio vs. People, 740 Phil. 616 [20/4 Corp. vs. Yao, G.R. No. 243328, Mar. 18, 2021,65 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES. see Ee ee ia ee Siete they adopt the petition praying that the People be impleaded as party petitioner;'** or (2) where the petition before the Supreme was filed by the complainant alone but the Solicitor General gave its conformity to the filing of the petition;!*” or (3) where the petition was brought by the complainant before the CFI and the “fiscal joined the motion for disqualification verbally while the case was in the City Court.’!** Exceptions to the rule, Jurisprudence tells that the complainant as ‘aggrieved person(s)" has sufficient interest and personality in filing the petition for certiorari before the appellate court without the intervention of the Solicitor General in the following exceptional 1) when the civil aspect is deemed instituted with the criminal action;'? (2) when the questioned order is issued with grave abuse of discretion;'® (3) when the dismissal of the criminal action, or the acquittal of the accused in a criminal action is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction;'" and (4) when there is a denial of due process. The case of Soriano vs. Angeles, 339 SCRA 366, 373 [2000], reiterated the rule that: “In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein itis alleged that the People vs. Toledano, 332. SCRA 210, 215 [2000]. Petron Corp. vs. Yao, G.R. No. 243328, Mar. 18, 2021; Victorias illing Co., Inc, vs. Padilla, G. R. No. 156962, Oct. 6, 2008; People vs. CA, Phil. 80 [2015]. People vs, Calo, 186 SCRA 620 [1990] Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Padilla, G.R. No, 156962, Oct. 6, 2008; i eles, 339 SCRA 366, 373 [2000]. Calo, G.R. No. 88531, June 18, 1990; Paredes vs. Gopengco, [1969]. Marquez, 810 Phil. 187 [2017]; Perez vs. Hagonoy Rural Phil, 322 [2000]; Dela Rosa vs. CA, 323 Phil. 596 [1996]; , 755 Phil. 80 [2015]; Narciso vs. Sta, Romana-Cruz, 328 lty & Devt. Corp. vs. Mangali, G.R. No. 236618, Aug. 27, 's, Judge Santiago, 255 Phil. 851 [1989].66 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED ee ee trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in the name of said complainant.""® Thus, in the case of Perez vs. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc., 384 Phil. 322 (2000), the trial court dismissed the criminal charge for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents against the accused on the basis solely of the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice, and admitted the amended information which excluded him. Alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the complainant questioned before the Court of Appeals jin a petition for certiorari the trial court’s order. On the issue of the personality of the complainant to institute the petition, the Supreme Court held: “Thus, while it is only the Solicitor General that may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the private offended party retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal proceedings before the courts of law.” In the other case of David vs. Marquez, 810 Phil. 187 [2017], the ial court dismissed the two (2) informations for Illegal Recruitment Estafa against the accused on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. vate complainant questioned the dismissal before the Court of which granted the petition and reversed the order of On the issue of complainant's legal personality to file the , Santiago, supra, pp. 152-153.or PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES said petition, the CA ruled that while it is only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that may represent the People or the State in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court or the CA, the private offended party retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his/her own name in criminal proceedings before the courts of law, By means of a petition for review on certiorari, the accused went to the Supreme Court, which held: “Moreover, there have been occasions when this Court has allowed the offended party to pursue the criminal action on his/her own behalf, as when there is a denial of due process as in this case. Indeed, the right of offended parties to appeal or question an order of the trial court which deprives them of due process has always been recognized, the only limitation being that they cannot appeal any adverse ruling if to do so would place the accused in double jeopardy.” t, in a case of current vintage, the trial court granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the criminal case for dence. The private complainant elevated the case to the ppeals through a special civil action for certiorari but the court dismissed the petition on the ground that the it has no personality to question the dismissal of the se. The Supreme Court affirmed such dismissal, noted smplainant never discussed the accused’s civil liability in and held that the complainant was not denied of due of criminal prosecutions. neral rule, the courts will not issue writs of prohibition or preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal .'55 With more reason will injunction not lie when the & Devt. Corp. vs. Mangali, G.R. No. 236618, Aug. 27, Ie, G.R, No. 226993, Mar. 3, 2021; Borlongan vs. Pena, ‘Nov. 23, 2007; Andres vs. Cuevas, G.R. No. 150869,68 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED, ee eS OU Da Deemer case is still at the stage of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation.'® Exceptions to the rule. However, in extreme cases, the Supreme Court has laid the following exceptions: (1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; (4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) where the court has no Jurisdiction over the offense; (8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; (9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; (10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied; and (11) when issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners,” Prosecution of private crimes. Private crimes cannot be prosecuted except “upon complaint filed by the offended party.” The private crimes which cannot be prosecuted de oficio are adultery, concubinage, abduction, seduction, acts of lasciviousness, and defamation imputing any of such offenses.'"* It must be noted that rape is no longer classified among private crimes. Under RA 8353, the crime of rape was reclassified as a crime against persons which may be prosecuted de oficio.'® {© Samson vs, Guingona, 348 SCRA 32, 36 [2000]); Domondon vs Sandiganbayan, 328 SCRA 292, 299 [1999]. Arellano vs, Gatdula, G.R. No. 212215. Oct. 9, 2019; Domondon ¥s. Sandiganbayan, supra citing Ocampo IV vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725, 729-730 [1993]; Samson vs. Guingona, 348 SCRA 32, 36 [2000]; Mercado Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 594,598 [1995]; Brocka vs. Enrile, 192 BR 183, 188-189 [1990]; Venus vs. Desierto, 298 SCRA 196, 214-215 Sec. 5, Rule 119; Art. 344, Revised Penal Code. ec. 2, RA 8353ry PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES. re a In adultery and concubinage, the offended party must implead both the guilty parties and must not have consented or pardoned the offenders. In seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness, the complaint must be filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents or guardian. The complainant must not have expressly pardoned the offender.!”° The phrase “complaint filed by the offended party” as used in Section 5 should be given a liberal or loose interpretation meaning a “charge, allegation, grievance, accusation or denunciation” (West's Legal Thesaurus Dictionary, p. 158)— rather than a strict legal construction, for more often than not the offended party who files it is unschooled in the law. The purpose of the complaint in said Section is merely to initiate or commence the prosecution of the accused." na catena of cases, the Supreme Court maintained strict ¢ to the requirement imposed by Article 344 of the Revised e.'”? But the filing of a complaint in private crimes is ondition precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities wer to prosecute the guilty parties. It is the complaint that prosecutory proceeding without which the prosecutor and cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case. Once the is filed, the action proceeds just as in any other crime.'”? be stressed that a complaint of the offended party or her red in crimes against chastity out of consideration woman and her family, who might prefer to suffer lence rather than go through with the scandal of a Jaw deems it the wiser policy to let the aggrieved mily decide whether to expose to public view or to no, Jr, 287 SCRA 245, 296 [1998]. 208 SCRA 696, 707 [1992]. : 25 SCRA 11, 18 [1983]; People vs. Martinez, 76 Phil 12 Phil. 279; U.S vs. Narvas, 14 Phil. 410, U.S. vs. , Jr, 287 SCRA 245, 297 [1998]; People vs. Dela 904, Oct. 9, 2002. No. 171164, Nov. 28, 2008.REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED heated controversies in court the vices, fault, and disgraceful acts deourring in the family."”> And this should be the overriding Consideration in determining the issue of whether or not the condition precedent prescribed by said Article 344 has been complied with. For needless to state, the court should be guided by the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law." When requirement complied wit ‘The filing in court of the affidavit or sworn statement of the offended party, if it contains all the allegations required in a criminal complaint under Section 5, Rule 110, constitutes sufficient compliance with the law.'”” In a case, the Information reads as follows: “The undersigned City Fiscal upon a sworn complaint originally filed by the offended party Efraim Santibafiez, copies of which are thereto attached as Mnnexes ‘A’ and ‘B’ hereby accused CECILE SANTIBANEZ and AVELINO T. JAVELLANA of the crime of adultery x x x". The accused filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the offense charged, as the offended party had not filed the required complaint pursuant to the provisions of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court to the effect that “the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.” It was held that since the affidavit-complaint was attached to the information as an integral part thereof, and duly filed with the court, the requirement was sufficiently complied with.'”* Prior to the reclassification of rape, the victim signed @ “sinumpaang salaysay” accusing her father of having raped her 175 People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 135022, July 11, 2002; People vs. Babasa, 97 SCRA 672, 680 [1980]. 17 People vs. Iarde, supra; People vs. Barrientos, 285 SCRA 221, 231-234 [1998]; Donio-Teves vs. Vamenta, Jr., 133 SCRA 616, 625 [1984]. "7 Femandez vs. Lantin, 74 SCRA 338, 343 [1976]; People vs. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11, 18, 19 [1983]. T People vs. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11, 18, 19 [1983].n PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES ee OO ae twice. In that “sworn” statement (it was not actually swom to before the Municipal Judge although the proper jurat was typewritten at the bottom of the “salaysay") she categorically stated in Tagalog that she was raped twice by her father—the first time in September 1983 and the second time in November 1984, Thereafter, she signed the criminal complaint in English accusing her father of raping her “on or about the month of November 1984.” The Information charged the accused of raping her daughter “on or about the month of September 1983.” The defense contends that he could not be prosecuted for, and the trial court had no jurisdiction to convict him of having raped his daughter in September 1983, as alleged in the information since the criminal complaint which Joselin signed on February 2, 1989 accused her father of having raped her in November 1984. It was held that the jurisdictional requirement that a prosecution for rape should be commenced by a complaint of the aggrieved party, by her parents, grandparents or guardian was satisfied in this case, The ’s“‘sinumpaang salaysay" which was prepared in. the ular, and the “complaint” in English, which must have been ared for her by someone else, complement each other, when read er, and satisfy the legal definition of a “complaint” as “a sworn nent charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the ded party x x x” (Sec, 3 [now 5], Rule 110, 1985 Rules on al Procedure). The high court was not inclined to disregard alaysay (complaint) for mere lack of an oath for that would nt to suppressing her anguished ery for redress."”? ind in the subsequent case of People vs. Barrientos, 285 SCRA 231-234 [1998], the sworn statement of the offended party was d by her in the office of the Chief of Police; but the complaint the Municipal Trial Court was signed by the Chief of accused assailed both the complaint signed by the Chief d the Information filed by the Assistant Provincial s being insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. Court held: il, 208 SCRA 696 [1992].4 2 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED, “Verily, the situation is not beyond the context and the ambit of the ruling in People vs. Sangil (208 SCRA 696 1992]). The legal requirement imposed in Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, as has been so aptly observed in People vs. Harde (125 SCRA 11, 18, 19 [1983]) is “out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial.” The overriding consideration in determining compliance with the requirement is the intent and determination of the aggrieved party to seek judicial redress. Here, the sworn statement of the victim hardly can cast doubt on her evident resolve to bring the accused to justice.” But in the older case of People vs. Santos, (101 Phil. 798), the “salaysay” executed by complainant Bansuelo was not considered the complaint contemplated by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code because it was a mere narration of how the crime of rape was committed against her. The information filed by Rizal Provincial Fiscal Nicanor P. Nicolas commenced with the statement ‘the undersigned fiscal accuses Engracio Santos with the crime of rape, the offended party not having been mentioned at all as one of the accusers. Private crimes, by whom instituted. The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution of the offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness independently of her parents, grandparents, ot guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so. Where the offended party, who is a minor, fails to file the complaint, her rents, grandparents, or guardian may file the same. The right to file action granted to parents, grandparents, or guardian shall be ive of all other persons and shall be exercised successively in in provided, except as stated in the third paragraph of 110. gnacio, 294 SCRA 542. 550 [1998].B PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES In an old case, it was held that any technical defect in a complaint for rape would be remedied by testimony showing the consent and willingness of the family of the complainant who cannot give her consent (due to minority or mental retardation, for instance), to have the private offense publicly tried.'*' Thus, where the complaint was filed by the grandmother of the victim, the testimony of the mother to the effect that she ‘asked her mother to take care of the case’ exhibits her consent to pursue the victim’s assailant in compliance with the requirements of the law.'? But if the offended woman is not a minor and not otherwise incapacitated, only she can file the complaint." If the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she can file the complaint, and she has no known parents, grandparents or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf. prosecutions for adultery or concubinage, the person who can ‘omplaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else or he is a minor.'* pardon in private crimes. le expressly provides that crimes of adultery and ie shall not be prosecuted if the offended party has to the offense or pardoned the offenders. The offenses of abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall not be e offender has been expressly pardoned by the or her parents, grandparents, or guardian.'*° ded woman is of legal age and not otherwise she can extend a valid pardon to the offender. If valid pardon can be extended by her parents, dian, in that order, only with her conformity.'*” a, 164 SCRA 114 [1988]. R. No, 131472, Mar. 28, 2000, gelista, 97 Phil. 612. .w Compendium, 9th ed., Vol. Il, p. 257. p. 259.74 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED ‘The pardon to justify the dismissal of the complaint should be made prior to, and not after, the institution of the criminal action.'** ‘Accordingly, the prosecution of the case continues even if the offended party pardons the offender after the case has been instituted." An affidavit of desistance by itself, even when construed as a pardon in the so-called “private crimes,” is not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal case once the action has been instituted. The affidavit, nevertheless, may only possibly constitute evidence whose weight or probative value, like any other piece of evidence, would be up to the court for proper evaluation." Usually in private crimes, an affidavit of desistance is executed by the private complainant after pardoning and forgiving the offender. In this instance, the court treats the affidavit as an express pardon, It does not ipso facto dismiss the case, but determines the timeliness and validity thereof.""' Indeed, a case is not dismissed upon mere affidavit of desistance of the complainant, particularly where there exist special circumstances that raise doubts as to the reliability of the affidavit." The high court looks with disfavor on affidavits of desistance.'” Thus, in the case of Alonte vs. Savellano, supra, the “Affidavit of Desistance” of complainant Juvielyn was not considered an express pardon of the accused and the crime committed. Private complainant desisted from prosecuting the case against the accused because she wished “to start life anew and live normally again.” She reiterated this reason on the witness stand. She complained that members of the People vs. Junio, 237 SCRA 826 [1994]; People vs. Entes, 103 SCRA 162, cited by People vs. Soliao, 194 SCRA. 250 {1991}, which in turn is cited in People vs. Villorente, 210 SCRA 647 [1990]. 8 People vs. Alicante, 332 SCRA 440, 463 [2000]. 199 Alonte vs. Savellano, 287 SCRA 245, 261 [1998]. 1°! Alonte vs. Savellano, ibid. 122 Alonte vs. Savellano, ibid., 295; People vs. Lor, 132 SCRA 41, 47 1984]; People vs. Avila, 192 SCRA 635, 642-643 [1990]. People vs, Alicante, G.R. No. 127026-07, May 31, 2000; People Ys no, 5. 546 SCRA 514, 521 [2008]; People vs. Junio, 237 SCRA 826a8 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES pi ae EEE Es aes ee ee. media were bothering and harassing her and that she wanted to go back to her normal life. She never said that she forgave the accused, She did not absolve them from their culpability. She did not give any exculpatory fact that would raise doubts about her rape. She did not say that she consented to accused Alonte’s acts. Moreover, the rape case is already in court and it is no longer her right to decide whether or not the charge should be continued.!*" Prosecution for violation of special laws. The prosecution for violation of special laws shall be governed by the provisions thereof.'** Thus, the prosecution of drug-related cases, for example, shall be subject to the provisions of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002, and of election offenses, by the Omnibus Election Code and other election laws." In a case, it was held that, in the special cases of seizure of drugs, the statutory provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 should apply and must take dence in contrast to the general remedial provision of Section 8, 26 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.'” . 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. mplaint or information is sufficient if it states me of the accused; the designation of the given by the statute; the acts or omissions ined of as constituting the offense; the name offended party; the approximate date of the ission of the offense; and the place where the ‘was committed. n offense is committed by more than one of them shall be included in the r information. (6a) ANNOTATIONS: eople vs. Bang-ayan, G.R. No. 172870, Sept. 22, 2006. Versoza vs. People, G.R. No. 184535, Sept. 03, 2019. ple, G.R. No. 244495, Feb. 19, 2020.