THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AKSENIO DE LA CRUZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Pampanga convicting the defendant-appellant
of the crime of consummated rape upon the following information:

“Que en o hacia el 2 de febrero de 1933, en el
Municipio de Arayat, Provincia de Pampanga, Islas Filipinas, el
referido acusado, Arsenio de la Cruz, por medio de engano, fuerza,
amenaza e intimidacion, voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente, yacio con
Filomena Mario contra su voluntad. Hecho cometido contra la ley y con
las circunstancias agravantes de nocturnidad, despoblado y
premeditadon.”

The appellant makes the following assignments of error:

“1, The lower court erred in convicting the accused
of the alleged rape committed against Filomena Mano on the complaint
filed by her aunt, Romana Mafio, when her father is yet living and
within the Philippine Islands.

“2. The lower court erred in
not acquitting the accused.” The testimony of Romana Mafio (pp. 38, 39,
t. s. n.) recites that Filomena Mario is the niece of Romana Mano and
is living with, and supported by the latter; that the father of
Filoraena Mario is working in the adjacent Province of Tarlac. The
Solicitor-General contends that Romana Mafio is “to all intents and
purposes the legal guardian of said offended party” and he argues that
she is competent to sign the information in this case.

Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 3, 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, segtin
los casos.” Without passing at this time on the question whether the
tutor (legal guardian) may file a complaint in the temporary absence of
the parents or grandparents of the offended party, it suffices to say
that we cannot accept the view of the Government that an aunt who has
the temporary custody of a minor in the absence of her father occupies
the position of a tutor (legal guardian). The word “tutor” (guardian)
appearing in article 344, supra, must be given the same
meaning as in section 551 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that is to
say, a guardian legally appointed in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The argument of the Solicitor-General that delay and inconvenience
and possibly a complete defeat of justice might arise if the father, as
in the present instance, is absent from the province, addresses itself
rather to the Legislature which has it in its power to enlarge the list
of persons who might file complaints in such cases as this.

As the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the information, the judgment below must be reversed with costs de oficio.

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