People v. Ravidas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sylvia Abonitalla de Ravidas was charged with grave oral defamation in the Municipal Court of Cagayan de Oro City upon a sworn complaint signed by the offended party, Generosa Cariaga. The accused pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial. Procedural History: The lower court dismissed the case on June 30, 1962, ruling that the complainant, Generosa Cariaga, lacked the personality to sign the complaint. This dismissal was based on the court's interpretation of Article 7, Section 24(f) of the City Charter, which mandates the City Attorney to investigate and prepare necessary informations or complaints, and the last paragraph of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which the court believed prohibited prosecution by the offended party when the imputed crime is prosecutable de oficio. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the City Attorney and the Solicitor-General, appealed the dismissal order.
Issue(s)
Whether the offended party has the legal personality to file a complaint for grave oral defamation when the imputed crime is prosecutable de oficio. Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the case on the ground of lack of personality of the complainant to sign the complaint, instead of rendering judgment on the merits.
Ruling
The judgment of dismissal is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The offended party has the legal personality to file the complaint, and any objection to this personality is deemed waived if not raised during arraignment or trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the offended party's personality to file a complaint for grave oral defamation when the imputed crime is prosecutable de oficio: The Court held that neither the City Charter of Cagayan de Oro nor Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code prohibits or restricts the commencement of an action for defamation imputing a public crime or one prosecutable de oficio upon a written complaint of the offended party. The provision of the charter imposing a duty on the City Attorney to investigate and sign complaints does not preclude the victim from filing a complaint. Furthermore, Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires a complaint from the offended party for defamation consisting of the imputation of a crime not prosecutable de oficio, does not set up a prohibition against the offended party filing a complaint when the crime imputed is prosecutable de oficio. The ruling in People vs. Martinez was clarified to emphasize that it only underlines the indispensability of the offended party's complaint when the imputed crime cannot be prosecuted de oficio, such as adultery or concubinage. On the issue of the lower court's dismissal of the case: The Court found that the lower court erred in dismissing the case on the ground of lack of personality of the complainant. The record showed that the accused posted bail and proceeded to trial without raising any objection to the sufficiency or legality of the complaint. Any such technical objection should have been deemed waived. The lower court should have rendered judgment on the merits instead of motu proprio dismissing the case. The prosecution was conducted by an assistant City Attorney, which conforms with Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, particularly Section 1 (commencement of criminal actions) and Section 4 (prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal).
Main Doctrine
A criminal action for grave oral defamation, even if the imputed crime is prosecutable de oficio, may be commenced upon a written complaint filed by the offended party, and any objection to the complainant's personality to sign the complaint is deemed waived if not raised during arraignment or trial.