THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO MANABA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This
is an appeal from a decision of Judge Eulalio Garcia in the Court of
First Instance of Oriental Negros in criminal case No. 1827 dated
November 15, 1932, finding the defendant guilty of rape and sentencing
him to suffer seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal,
and the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the offended
party, Celestina Adapon, in the amount of P500, to maintain the
offspring, if any, at P5 a month until said offspring should become of
age, and to pay the costs.

The defendant appealed to this court, and his attorney de oficio now makes the following assignments of error:

“1. El Juzgado a quo erro al no estimar en favor del acusado apelante la defensa de double jeopardy o legal jeopardy que ha interpuesto.

“2. El Juzgado a quo erro al no declarar insuficientes las pruebas de identificacion del acusado apelante.

“3. El Juzgado a quo
tambien erro al pasar por alto las incoherencias de los testigos de la
acusacion y al no declarar que no se ha establecido fuera de toda duda
la responsabilidad del apelante.

“4. El Juzgado a quo erro al condenar al acusado apelante por el delito de violacion y al no acceder a su mocion de nueva vista.”

It appears that on May 10, 1932, the chief of police of Dumaguete
subscribed and swore to a criminal complaint wherein he charged Pedro
Manaba with the crime of rape, committed on the person of Celestina
Adapon. This complaint was filed with the justice of the peace of
Dumaguete on June 1, 1932, and in due course the case reached the Court
of First Instance. The accused was tried and convicted, but on motion
of the attorney for the defendant 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 of the action,
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, the offended girl subscribed and swore to a complaint charging
the defendant with the crime of rape. This complaint was filed in the
Court of First Instance (criminal case No. 1827), but was referred to
the justice of the peace of Dumaguete for preliminary investigation.
The defendant waived his right to the preliminary investigation, but
asked for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that he had
previously been placed in jeopardy for the same offense. This motion
was denied by the justice of the peace, and the case was remanded to
the Court of First Instance, where the provincial fiscal in an
information charged the defendant with having committed the crime of
rape as follows:

“Que en o hacia la noche
del dia 9 de mayo de 1932, en el Municipio de Dumaguete, Provincia de
Negros Oriental, Islas Filipinas, y dentro de la jurisdiccion de este
Juzgado. el referido acusado Pedro Manaba, aprovechandose de la
oscuridad de la noche y mediante fuerza, violencia e intimidacion,
voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente yacio y tuvo acceso carnal con una
niña llamada Celestina Adapon, contra la voluntad de esta. El acusado
Pedro Manaba ya ha sido convicto por Juzgado competente y en sentencia
firme por este mismo delito de violacion.

“Hecho cometido con infraccion de la ley.”

The defendant renewed his motion for dismissal in the case on the
ground of double jeopardy, but his motion was denied; and upon the
termination of the trial the defendant was found guilty and sentenced
as hereinabove stated.

Whether the defendant was placed in
jeopardy for the second time or not when he was tried in the present
case depends on whether or not he was tried on a valid complaint in the
first case. The offense in question was committed on May 9, 1932, or
subsequent to the date when the Revised Penal Code became effective.

The third paragraph of article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, which
relates to the prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage,
seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness reads as follows:

“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.”

The Spanish text of this paragraph is as follows:

“Tampoco
puede procederse por causa de estupro, rapto, violacion o abusos
deshonestos, sino en virtud de denuncia de la parte agraviada, o de sus
padres, o abuelos o tutor, ni despues de haberse otorgado al ofensor,
perdon expreso por dichas partes, segun los casos.”

It will be observed that the Spanish equivalent of the word “filed” is
not found in the Spanish text, which is controlling, as it was the
Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code that was approved by the
Legislature.

The first complaint filed against the defendant
was signed and sworn to by the chief of police of Dumaguete. 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.

It might be observed in
this connection 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.

The other
assignments of error relate to the sufficiency of the evidence, which
in our opinion fully sustains the findings of the trial judge.

The recommendation of the Solicitor-General is erroneous in several
respects, chiefly due to the fact that it is based on the decision of
July 30, 1932 that was set aside, and not on the decision now under
consideration. 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.

It appears that the lower court
should have taken into consideration the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity. The defendant is therefore sentenced to suffer seventeen
years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, to
indemnify the offended party, Celestina Adapon, in the sum of P500, and
to support the offspring, if any. As thus modified, the decision
appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of both instances against the
appellant.

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