Samilin v. Court of First Instance of Pangasinan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a criminal case for rape filed against Apolinario Samilin. The prosecution was initiated under Act No. 1773, which classified such offenses as public crimes prosecuted similarly to other penal code offenses. The complaint was initially filed by the chief of police and later an information was filed by the provincial fiscal. Procedural History: The criminal case commenced on April 16, 1931, with a complaint filed by the chief of police. Following a finding of probable cause, the case proceeded to the Court of First Instance, where the provincial fiscal filed an information on June 11, 1931. The petitioner was arraigned and trial began on November 17, 1931. After the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) took effect on January 1, 1932, the petitioner moved to dismiss the case on January 13, 1932, arguing lack of jurisdiction based on new provisions in the Revised Penal Code. This motion was denied on February 9, 1932, and a motion for reconsideration was denied on February 27, 1932. The Petition: This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition, praying that the respondent court be commanded to cease proceedings in the rape case. The petitioner argues that Article 344, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, which requires prosecution for rape to be initiated by the offended party or her relatives, is a jurisdictional requirement that favors the accused. Invoking Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, the petitioner contends this provision should have retroactive effect, invalidating the prosecution because the initial complaint was not filed by the aggrieved party or her legal representatives. The petition questions the court's jurisdiction to proceed with the trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the requirement under Article 344, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, that a complaint for rape must be filed by the offended party or her relatives, favors persons charged with the crime. Whether this requirement is jurisdictional and, if so, whether it must be given retroactive effect to dismiss prosecutions begun before January 1, 1932, if the complaints were not filed by the offended party or her relatives.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Article 344, paragraph 2, favors persons charged with rape: The Court held that the premise that Article 344, paragraph 2, favors persons charged with rape cannot be taken for granted. While it changed the nature of the offense from a public crime under Act No. 1773 to a private offense requiring a complaint from the offended party or her relatives, this provision was enacted out of consideration for the offended party and her family, who might prefer privacy over public trial. It would be an insult to the Legislature to assume it was enacted to favor rapists. The Court noted that it is conceivable that a private individual might file a complaint out of malice or improper motive, which an impartial fiscal might not file. Therefore, it is not clear that a complaint filed by the offended party or her relatives is less likely to be filed or vigorously prosecuted than one filed by the fiscal, nor is it apparent that it makes a real difference to the accused. On the issue of retroactivity and jurisdiction: The Court stated that penal laws relating to mere matters of form or procedure are not given retroactive effect in the sense that all proceedings prior to their effectivity, which conform to the law in force at the time, must be overturned. Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code was enacted to avoid the havoc that would result if such changes were made retroactive. The Court pointed out that Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code makes penal laws retroactive only "en cuanto favorezcan al culpable de un delito" (insofar as they favor the guilty). Since Article 344, paragraph 2, was not clearly favorable to the accused, and considering that procedural changes are generally not retroactive to overturn valid proceedings, the requirement of a complaint by the offended party or her relatives was not given retroactive effect to divest the court of jurisdiction over a case initiated before the Revised Penal Code took effect. The Court also referenced the case of People vs. Tolentino, where it was held that the Revised Penal Code did not intend to divest Courts of First Instance of jurisdiction over crimes already acquired, implying that procedural changes should not invalidate prior proceedings.
Main Doctrine
Penal laws that relate to mere matters of form or procedure are not given retroactive effect in the sense that all proceedings prior to their effectivity, which conform to the law in force at the time, must be overturned and new proceedings begun, especially when such changes are not clearly favorable to the accused.