- Petitioner
- Consolacion P. Mangila
- Respondent
- Judge Lantin
- Citation
- G.R. No. L-24735
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decided
- October 31, 1969
Jurisdiction over serious slander case and whether criminal action requires express complaint from offended parties
Summary
Supreme Court case involving jurisdictional challenge to serious slander prosecution. Petitioner Mangila challenged Court of First Instance jurisdiction, claiming case belonged to Municipal Court and required express complaint from offended parties. Court ruled that both CFI and Municipal Court have concurrent jurisdiction over crimes punishable by more than 6 months but not exceeding 3 years imprisonment. Since serious slander carries penalty of arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum, CFI had proper jurisdiction. Court also held Article 360 RPC requiring express complaint did not apply since imputed acts (prostitution, premarital relations) either involve crimes prosecutable de officio or are not crimes requiring private complaint. Petition dismissed, allowing criminal prosecution to proceed.
Focus of dispute
Jurisdiction over serious slander case and whether criminal action requires express complaint from offended parties
Legal facts
Spouses Naciensena Santos de Dazo and Mariano T. Dazo filed criminal complaint for serious slander against Consolacion P. Mangila on October 8, 1963. Information filed October 10, 1963, amended February 15, 1965. Defamatory words in dialect translated as 'BEFORE YOU WERE MARRIED YOU HAD ILLICIT RELATIONS WITH DAZO. PROSTITUTE' allegedly uttered September 30, 1963 in Concepcion, Tarlac. Mangila moved to quash claiming lack of jurisdiction and improper filing without express complaint.
Judgement and reasoning
Court of First Instance of Tarlac: Initially dismissed information for lack of jurisdiction (February 24, 1965). Upon motion for reconsideration, reversed dismissal, denied motion to quash and set arraignment date (May 10, 1965). Denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration (June 17, 1965).
Supreme Court (En Banc): Dismissed petition and dissolved preliminary injunction. Held that both Court of First Instance and Municipal Court have concurrent jurisdiction over crimes with penalties of more than 6 months but not exceeding 3 years imprisonment. Serious slander penalty (arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum) falls within this range. Also ruled that Article 360 RPC requiring express complaint does not apply since prostitution can be prosecuted de officio, and premarital relations imputation does not involve crimes that cannot be prosecuted de officio.