PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. BIENVENIDO LEOPARTE, alias "EMBEN," II G.R. No. 85328

G.R. No. 85328                                  July 4, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 
vs.
BIENVENIDO LEOPARTE, alias "EMBEN," 

FACTS:
Bienvenido Leoparte was charged and convicted with the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape by the Regional Trial Court of Lucena. It was alleged in the information that the accused, Leoparte, pulled the victim, Marinel Idea, while she was on her way home and traversing the railroad tracks. The accused then dragged her to the nearby banana plantation where the accused satisfied his carnal desires against the victim’s will. Thereafter, the accused brought the victim to his sister’s home where he again had carnal knowledge with the victim.
           
The following day, the accused brought the victim to his uncle’s home and again succeeded to have carnal knowledge with the victim against her will. After two day, the accused the brought the victim to the house of his parents where he again successfully satisfied his lascivious desires against the victim. All the incidents took place with the accused purporting that he and the victim had eloped and were planning to get married.
           
Issues:
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case.

Held:
Yes, The Regional Trial Court has lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the case.
Article 344 was not enacted for the specific purpose of benefiting the accused. When it is said that the requirement in Article 344 that a complaint of the offended party or her relatives is jurisdictional, what is meant is that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutor proceeding. It is not the complaint which confers jurisdiction on the court to try the case. The court's jurisdiction is vested in it by the Judiciary Law. Such condition has been 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 overriding consideration in determining the issue of whether or not the condition precedent prescribed in Article 344 has been complied with is the intent of the aggrieved party to seek judicial redress for the affront committed.  In the case at bar, the active cooperation of the offended party in the prosecution of the case, as witness, clearly indicates said intent.



Post a Comment (0)
Previous Post Next Post