8/14/2019 20 Ppl vs Tanada.doc
1/5
THIRD DIVISION[G.R. No. L-32215. October 17, 1988.]POPL O! TH
PHILIPPINS, "et#t#o$er, %&. HON. S'NTI'GO O. T'('D',)*+e o te
/o*rt o !#r&t I$&t0$ce o /eb* r0$c V,
re&"o$+e$t.S4LL'S
1. R6DI'L L' /RI6IN'L PRO/DR RL O! /O6PL'INT-!ILD-IN-/ORT 'S
NN/I'TD IN SVR'L /ORT RLING:PL'IND. ; The rule of
"complaint-filed-in-court" enunciated in People vs.Santos (G.R. No.
8522! une 2#! $#5%& $$ Phil. %#8' to the effect that unless
the
same is filed in court! a "salasa" or s)orn statement of the
offended part! )hich
prompted the fiscal to conduct a preliminar investi*ation and
then to file an
information in court! is not the complaint re+uired , rticle //
of the Revised
Penal 0ode. 1n the $# case of 3aldepe4as v. People this 0ourt!
throu*h then
ssociate! later 0hief ustice Ro,erto 0oncepcion! clarified
rticle // of the
Revised Penal 0ode is merel a condition precedent to the
e6ercise , the proper
authorities of the po)er to prosecute the *uilt parties. nd such
condition has ,een
imposed out of the consideration for the offended )oman and her
famil )ho mi*htprefer to suffer the out ra*e in silence rather than
*o throu*h )ith the scandal of a
pu,lic trial. (Samilin v. 071 of Pan*asinan! 5% Phil. 2#8! /'
This rulin* )as
follo)ed in the su,se+uent case of People v. a,asa )here the
0ourt! citin* the
3aldepe4as case! ruled that "rt. // )as not enacted for the
specific purpose of
,enefitin* the accused. 9hen it is said that the re+uirement in
rticle // that there
should ,e a complaint of the offended part or her relatives is
:urisdictional! )hat is
meant is that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutor
proceedin*. 1t is not the
complaint )hich confers :urisdiction on the 0ourt to tr the
case. The court;s
:urisdiction is vested in it , the udiciar
