Scribd
Upload
198 views2 pages

People Vs Yparraguirre

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the trial court had jurisdiction over a rape case even though the complaint was signed by the chief of police and not the victim. The victim was mentally retarded and incapable of filing the complaint herself. Under Rule 110, a rape case can be prosecuted based on a complaint by the victim or certain relatives unless the victim is incompetent. Here, while the victim was no longer a minor, she was mentally retarded and incapable of filing the complaint on her own. The filing of the complaint by the authorities satisfied the requirement to seek redress on behalf of the victim and allow the case to proceed.

Uploaded by

Carl Lawson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
198 views2 pages

People Vs Yparraguirre

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the trial court had jurisdiction over a rape case even though the complaint was signed by the chief of police and not the victim. The victim was mentally retarded and incapable of filing the complaint herself. Under Rule 110, a rape case can be prosecuted based on a complaint by the victim or certain relatives unless the victim is incompetent. Here, while the victim was no longer a minor, she was mentally retarded and incapable of filing the complaint on her own. The filing of the complaint by the authorities satisfied the requirement to seek redress on behalf of the victim and allow the case to proceed.

Uploaded by

Carl Lawson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES vs.

ELMER YPARRAGUIRE y SEPE


G.R. No. 124391               July 5, 2000

Principle: Rule 110 – Prosecution of Offenses

FACTS:
Charmelita D. Ruina, an invalid and mentally retarded was raped by Elmer Yparraguirre alias
"Lalo". The following morning, accused went back to the store and apologized for what he did
and promised not to do it again.

NOTE: After his indictment and trial, accused-appellant appeals from his conviction for the
crime of rape of a mental retardate. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of
1997, rape is a crime against person which may be prosecuted de oficio. However, considering
that the alleged rape was committed in 1994, which was prior to the effectivity of R.A.
8353, we apply the old law and treat rape as a private crime.

ISSUE: W/N the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case because the complaint was signed
and filed by the chief of police and not by the complainant.
RULING: YES
Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides in part:
"The offense 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. In case the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she could file the
complaint and has no known parents, grandparents or guardian, the State shall initiate the
criminal action in her behalf.
The offended party, even if she were a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution for the
above offenses, independently of her parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is
incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. Where the offended
party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents, or guardian may file
the same. The right to file the action granted to the parents, grandparents or guardian shall be
exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised successively in the order herein provided,
except as stated in the immediately preceding paragraph."

Pursuant to the afore-quoted provision, the offended party can initiate a prosecution for rape
even if she is a minor, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other
than her minority. Although the victim in this case is no longer a minor, it is undisputed that she
is a mental retardate and suffering from physical deformity. No woman would come out in the
open, inform the authorities of the injustice done to her, make a statement of what had happened
unless her purpose is to redress the wrong done against her honor. Once the violation of the law
becomes known through a direct original participation initiated by the victim, the requirements
of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), to the effect that the offense of rape "shall
not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents," are
satisfied. Said provision is not determinative of the jurisdiction of courts over the private
offenses because the same is governed by the Judiciary law, not the Revised Penal Code which
deals with the definition of felonies and their punishment. Stated differently, the complaint
required in Article 344 is but a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of
the power to prosecute the guilty parties. Such condition was 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. The complaint simply starts the prosecutory
proceeding but does not confer jurisdiction on the court to try the case because the overriding
consideration in determining whether the condition precedent in Article 344 has been complied
with is the intent of the aggrieved party to seek judicial redress for the affront committed.

Article 344 was not enacted for the specific purpose of benefitting the accused. When it is said
that the requirement in Article 344 (that there should be 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 in the court to try the case. The
court’s jurisdiction is vested in it by the Judiciary Law.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy