People vs. Leoparte, G.R. No. 85328 July 4, 1990

Crim Pro - Jurisdiction

Facts:

An information was filed against Bienvenido Leoparte in the RTC of Lucena, Branch 60. Leoparte was charged of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape as complained by the offended party, Marinel Idea. Leoparte claims that he and the alleged victim eloped and that the sexual intercourses were consensual. The trial court, however, convicted Leoparte. In his appeal, Leoparte raised the issue that "[t]he trial court, nor any court for that matter, did not acquire jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case" as it is a

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the complaint filed by Idea and her mother.

Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over this case.

Held. Yes. The Supreme Court held that "[t]he complaint by the offended party provided for in Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code does not determine the jurisdiction of the courts over crimes against chastity but is only a condition precedent for the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to prosecute." Moreover, "the failure of appellant to raise said issue at the trial court barred him from raising said issue on appeal, in consonance with Rule 117 of the Rules of Court." Further, the Court explained that "[When it is said that the requirement in Article 344 that a complaint of the offended party or her relatives is jurisdictional, what is meant is that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding. It is not the complaint which confers jurisdiction on the court to try the case. The court's jurisdiction is vested in it by the Judiciary Law. Such condition has been imposed out of consideration for the offended woman and her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial.”

            Lastly, the active cooperation of the offended party in the trial indicates intent to pursue the criminal action, thus, the condition precedent prescribed in Art. 344, which covers the offense charged, has been complied with.