Jellica Honra 1 Criminal Procedure – Case Digest
Rule 110 Sec. 1 SUSAN LLENES VS. JUDE D!CD!CAN .R. N". 1###$%& JUL' (1& 1))* +AC,SVivian Guinet filed with the Ombudsman – Visayas a complaint for grave oral defamation against Susan Llenes, the ducation Supervisor of !"S #egional Office of "ebu$ %he investigating officer, in his resolution, recommended that the case be endorsed to the Office of the "ity &rosecutor for the filling of the necessary information against the petitioner for the filling of the necessary information against the petitioner$ %he "ity &rosecutor filed with the '%" an information for grave oral defamation against the petitioner$ %he latter filed a motion to (uash the information on the ground that the criminal action or liability has been e)tinguished$ She contended that the offense already prescribed when the information was filed *+ days or months and days from the alleged commission thereof$ %he 'otion to -uash was denied by the '%"$ %he #%" #%" Judge !icdican affirmed the decision of the latter$ !SSUE-
./0 the offense of grave oral defamation has already prescribed1
ELD-
No. !n chartered cities, criminal prosecution is generally initiated by the filing of the complaint or the city fiscal for preliminary investigation$ 2n the case of provincial fiscals, besides being empowered li3e municipal 4udges to conduct preliminary investigations, they may even reverse actions of municipal 4udges with respect to charges triable by "ourts of 5irst 2nstance$ "learly, therefore, therefore, the filing of the denuncia or complaint for intriguing against honor by the offended party, later changed by the 5iscal to grave oral defamation, even if it were in the 5iscal6s Office, 78 days after the alleged defamatory remar3s were committed 9or discovered: by the accused interrupts the period of prescription$ 92talics supplied: denuncia with
PE"PLE VS. ,A'C" .R. N". %)$0$ – 0)& DECE/ER & 1)%1 +AC,S%he offense in (uestion is un4ust ve)ation alleged to have been committed by the defendant Victor %ayco %a yco against 'arcelina ;lcacetas, 5lora "arreon and #osalina Valen and 'ay , *8?*, respectively$ %he %he offended parties complained to the "ity 5iscal on 'ay >?, *8?*, but the "ity 5iscal6s office did not file the corresponding information in the 'unicipal "ourt until July *@, *8?*, that i s to say, more than two months after the commission and discovery of the offense$ %he 'unicipal "ourt denied defendant6s motion to (uash, but upon appeal the "ourt of 5irst 2nstance 9Judge Jose #$ "arlos presiding: dismissed the three cases, and the "ity 5iscal appealed to this "ourt$ !SSUE-
./0 the offense had already prescribed1
ELD'es. .e agree with the lower court and the Solicitor General that such contention is untenable$ Section >?= of the #evised ;dministrative "ode, upon which the "ity 5iscal relies, re(uires him to investigate Aall charges of crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances, and have the necessary informations or complaints prepared or made against the person accused$ A5rom this it is claimed by the "ity 5iscal that he has the power to conduct a preliminary investigation li3e a 4ustice of the peace, and that the lodging of a complaint in hi s office by the offended party is li3e the filing of a complaint in a 4ustice of the peace court$ But under article 8* of the #evised &enal "ode, "ode, the the running of the period of prescription is interrupted not by the act of the offended party in reporting the offense to the fiscal but by filing of the complaint or information$ Said article further provides that the period of the prescription shall commence to run again when the proceedings initiated by the filing of the complaint or information terminate without the accused being convicted or ac(uitted$ %hus, it is clear that the compliant or information referred to in article 8* is that which is filed i n the proper court and not the denuncia or accusation lodged by the offended party in the "ity 5iscal6s office$ 2t is needless to add that such accusation in the "ity 5iscal6s office cannot end there in the ac(uittal or conviction of the accused$
