The present cause for the crime of adultery was  commenced and prosecuted  through a complaint  filed  by the provincial fiscal.  The offended husband did  not formally file any complaint whatever.   It is true that, in the written complaint, it is  stated that the same was presented by the fiscal at the -instance  of the offended  party and that the latter, in testifying as a witness at the trial, stated that "he denounced" the crime to  the  fiscal and' asked him to file a complaint against his wife  and the  adulterer;" but this does not fulfill the requirement of section 1 of Act No. 1773 which prescribes that "no prosecution  for the crimes of adulierio, estupro,  or injuria committed against persons  other than public officials or employees  shall be instituted except upon  the  complaint of the aggrieved person or of the parents, grandparents or guardian of such person."

Interpreting this provision, we said in the decision rendered on November 9, 1909, in the case of the U.  S. vs. Narvas (14 Phil. Rep., 410), that:

"*   *   *  in order to give the  court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and the subject-matter of the action it is necessary in these cases (those of adulterio, estupro or injuria, mentioned in  the said section), that the complaint  *   *   *   be made and executed in writing by the offended party personally, if that person be competent to do so, and, if not, then by one of the persons named in the section (referred to) in the  order in which they are named therein."

The complaint, of course, is understood to be such as is defined by section 4 of General Orders, No. 58.

Owing to the absence, then,  of a proper complaint by the offended party, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the case dismissed, with the costs of both instances de oficio.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.

Trent, J,, concurs in the result.