PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v.

VICENTE PUBLICO y AMODIA, 13

April 2011, En Banc, Sereno

Digest by: Jules B. Pamisa, EH 202

Principle in sum:

“The law does not estate or does not intend to state the right of the offended party
to file the complaint against the offender, in cases of seduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness, is here exclusive in the sense that when she does not file the same,
her parents, grandparents, or guardian cannot file it. What it means to say and
what it in facts says is, that when the offended party is a minor and she does not
file the complaint, this may be done by her parents, grandparents or guardian, in
the order named”

FACTS:

1. 21 February 1999 – AAA, the 12 year old daughter of accused-

appellant, was in their house that night. After AAA put her younger
sister to sleep, her father called for her. When she approached him, he
held a bolo and ordered her to take off her panty, which she refused to
do so. Accused-appellant proceeded to remove the panty and
attempted to insert his penis into her vagina, which proved
unsuccessful because of the physiological state of AAA as she was
only 12 years old. The mere attempt caused AAA immense pain.
Frustrated and enraged, accused-appellant started hurling tirades at
her. Soon after, one of their neighbors knocked on their door which
accused-appellant then opened and left the house with the former.
2. 22 February 1999 – AAA, together with her older Brother CCC,
reported to the police and filed an Information charging accused-
appellant with attempted rape.
3. Her father, Silvestre Ballos, filed a complaint for abduction before the
Justice of the Peace Court of Pontevedra, Capiz against the petitioner.
4. 18 May 1954 - When the case was elevated to the court of first
instance, the fiscal filed an information for the same crime in
accordance with law.
5. 6 August 1954 – Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss challenging the
jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the complaint was not

1
 signed by the offended party, who was already of the age of
discernment, but merely by her father. Petitioner’s argument is
predicated on Article 344 of the RPC which states:
"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."
6. 14 September 1954 – Court denied the motion.
ISSUE:

A. Whether or not to set aside the order of respondent judge which denied the
motion to dismiss fled by petitioner on the ground of lack of jurisdiction?

RULING:

A. NO.

If the offended party, who is under age, does not file or does not want to file the
complaint against her offender, her parents may do so "being under obligation to
render protection to those under their power and lawful guardianship and to
represent them in the exercise of all the actions which may redound to their
benefit." As expressed by this Court in Tolentino vs. De la Costa in regards to the
effect of Article 344 of the RPC:

SC: "does not state or does not intend to state that the right of the offended
party to file the complaint against the offender, in the cases mentioned, is
hers exclusively in the sense that when she does not file the same, her
parents, grandparents, or guardian cannot file it. What it means to say and
what it in fact says is, that when the offended party is a minor and she does
not file complaint, this may be done by her parents, grandparents or
guardian, in the order named."

The case of U.S. vs. Bautista affirms the right of the parents to take action and
vindicate the wrong done to their minor children and to the whole family is
justified:

2
SC: “if, according to the procedural law, a minor cannot appear at the
hearing without his personal incapacity being substituted by the authority of
the parents or guardian, how can it be admitted, against what sound
principles teach, positive legislation has established and science has
exalted, that the legislator has here intended to make a very serious
exception, destitute of all foundations and full of dangers and fatal
consequences to a minor? This is inadmissible, and, therefore, under sound
interpretation, the spirit of the law must in this case prevail over its letter.”

xxx