PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLE, VS. BASILIO PALABAO, DEFENDANT-APPELANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of First
Instance of Davao finding the defendant guilty of the crime of abduction
with consent and sentencing him to suffer a minimum penalty of 3 months
and 11 days of arresto mayor and a maximum penalty of 1 year, 8
months and 21 days of prision correccional, the accessories of
the law, to indemnify the complainant Remedios Sarillo in the sum of
P500, or to undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the
payment of the indemnity, not to exceed one-third of the principal
penalty, to support the offspring, if any, and to pay the costs.

The appellant assigns as one of the errors committed by the trial
court the fact that in spite of the lack of complaint filed by the
offended party, the Court proceeded to try the defendant, found him
guilty and sentenced him to suffer the penalty above stated. After the
filing of the appellant’s brief, the Solicitor General filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that as provided for in article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code “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, * * *”
and that such complaint to be filed by the offended party is essential
to vest in the Court jurisdiction to try the defendant charged with any
of the offenses enumerated in the aforesaid article. The fact that at
the bottom of the information and above the signature of the prosecuting
officer the offended party signed and that in the first paragraph of
the information it is recited that “at the instance of the offended
party” the provincial fiscal charges the defendant of the crime of
seduction does not vest jurisdiction in the court, for a complaint must
be sworn to by the offended party. Her signature at the bottom of the
information does not comply with the requirement of the law that the
complaint be sworn to. ^[1]

In view of the rule laid down in the cases referred to, the Court of
First Instance of Davao acquired no jurisdiction to try the defendant in
this case and the trial, verdict and judgment are a nullity.

The judgment appealed from is annulled and the information dismissed,
without costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemeyor, Reyes, A.,
Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L.,
JJ., concur.

---

^[1] U.S. vs. Narvas,
14 Phil., 410; U.S. vs. Cruz et al., 20 Phil., 363; People vs.
Trinidad, 58 Phil., 163; People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil., 665;
People vs. Ugalde (unpublished), 58 Phil., 968; People vs.
Mandia, 60 Phil., 372; Tolentino vs. de la Costa, 66 Phil., 97.