THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PERCIVAL GILO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Appellant was charged before the Justice of the Peace Court of Guimbal,
Iloilo, with a crime labelled as “Acts of Lasciviousness” described in
a complaint filed by the offended party. After conducting the required
preliminary investigation, the justice of the peace forwarded the case
to the Court of First Instance where the provincial fiscal filed an
information charging a similar crime of “Acts of Lasciviousness.” It
was alleged this time that the acts were committed “with lewd design.”

Trial was conducted by the latter court, and after the prosecution had
rested its case, appellant filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of
jurisdiction in view of the lack of allegation of lewd design in the
complaint subscribed by the offended party. The court, however,
deferred action on the motion until after trial had been completed.
Thereafter, the court rendered decision finding that the act committed
was merely one of unjust vexation and sentenced appellant to pay a fine
of P20.00. Appellant interposed the present appeal.

The complaint filed before the Justice of the Peace Court of Guimbal,
Iloilo, by the offended party, which was labelled as “Acts of
Lasciviousness”, reads as follows:

“That on or about December 11, 1957, in the Municipality of Guimbal,
Province of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused Percival Gilo taking advantage of his
being drank with force and intimidation did then and there
intentionally, maliciously, feloniously and criminally touch the breast
and face of Verna Genzola against her will or consent and as a result
of which Verna Genzola suffered shame, embarrassment, and lost her
self-respect.”

Considering that in order
that a crime constituting acts of lasciviousness may be committed it is
necessary that it be alleged that it was committed with lewd design,
the latter being an indispensable element of all crimes against
chastity, such as abduction, seduction and rape, including acts of
lasciviousness, the complaint copied above cannot really be considered
as charging a crime of acts of lasciviousness because of the absence of
such element, even if the complaint is labelled as “Acts of
Lasciviousness.”^[1]
What characterizes a criminal charge is not the title but the body of
the complaint or information. In this sense, the lower court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case, even if the information filed by
the provincial fiscal be one of acts of lasciviousness, because the
complaint that gave initial life to the case is merely one of unjust
vexation. This fatal defect can only be cured by making the proper
correction in the complaint filed by the offended party, which here was
not done. Verily, the lower court acted without, jurisdiction, thereby
rendering all its proceedings null and void.

The contention
of the government that the complaint filed by the offended party before
the Justice of the Peace Court of Guimbal, Iloilo, is sufficient even
if it does not allege that the act, was committed with lewd design is
untenable, because the words “feloniously and criminally” that are
alleged in the complaint are mere general terms which denote the
criminal intent of the accused but which do not necessarily connote the
idea of lust needed in the commission of the act. Lust or lewd design
is an element that characterizes all crimes against chastity, apart
from the felonious or criminal intent of the offender, and such element
must be always present in order that they may be so considered in
contemplation of law. The absence of such element converts the act into
another crime, which in this case is unjust vexation.

WHEREFORE,
the decision appealed from is reversed. It is ordered that this case be
remanded to the lower court with the directive that it be in turn
remanded to the Justice of the Peace Court of Guimbal, Iloilo, so that
trial may proceed under the complaint filed by the offended party. No
costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] People vs. Crisostomo, 46 Phil. 775; People vs. Aguinaldo, 34, Off. Gaz.; 1896; People vs. Parentela, G. R. No. 41804, February 16, 1995, III Lawyers’ League Journal, 416; Viado, 3 Cod. Pen., 124.