People of the Philippines v.

Clemente Bautista
G.R. No. J6864J, 2007 April 27, Iirst Division (Austria-Martiez, J.)



1be C. ava re.ovaevt are of tbe rier tbat vov arorat of tbe ivre.tigativg ro.ecvtor.
recovvevaatiov for tbe fitivg of av ivforvatiov agaiv.t re.ovaevt, tbe erioa of re.critiov begav to rvv agaiv.
1be Covrt aoe. vot agree. t i. a rett.etttea rvte tbat tbe fitivg of tbe covtaivt ritb tbe fi.cat`. office .v.eva.
tbe rvvvivg of tbe re.critire erioa.


Respondent Clemente Bautista and his co-accused Leonida Bautista were charged o the
crime o slight physical injuries against priate complainant lelipe Goyena Jr. arising rom a
dispute between them dated June 12, 1999. On August 16, 1999, priate complainant iled with
the Oice o the City Prosecutor ,OCP, a Complaint or slight physical injuries against herein
respondent and his co-accused.

Meanwhile, ater the preliminary inestigation, the City Prosecutor approed the iling o
criminal inormation against the respondent. loweer, the Inormation was iled in the
Metropolitan 1rial Court by the City Prosecutor only in June 20, 2000. Respondent sought the
dismissal o the case against him on the ground that by the time the Inormation was iled, the
60-day period o prescription rom the date o the commission o the crime, that is, on June 12,
1999 had already elapsed. 1he Me1C ruled that the oense had not yet prescribed.

1he issue was eleated to the Regional 1rial Court but denied and concurred with the
decision o the Me1C. Respondent Bautista iled a petition or certiorari in the Court o
Appeals. 1he CA ruled that indeed the 60-day prescriptie period was interrupted when the
oended party iled a Complaint with the OCP o Manila on August 16, 1999. Neertheless, the
CA concluded that the oense had prescribed by the time the Inormation was iled with the
Me1C, reasoning that although the approal o the Joint Resolution eectiely terminated the
proceedings at the OCP, the inormation was iled with the Me1C only on June 20, 2000, or
already nearly six ,6, months into the next year. 1o use once again the language of Article 9J
of the RPC, the proceedings at the CPO was unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him (the accused) for a time very much more than the prescriptive period
of only two (2) months. 1he oense charged had, thereore, already prescribed when iled
with the court on June 20, 2000.

lence, this petition.

ISSULS:

\hether or not the iling o the criminal inormation already prescribed

HLLD:

Petition GRAN1LD.
1he Court ruled that at the time o iling o complaint to the iscal`s oice suspends the
running o the prescriptie period. Article 91 o the Reised Penal Code proides:
Art. 91. Covvtatiov of re.critiov of offev.e.. - 1he period o prescription shall
commence to run rom the day on which the crime is discoered by the oended
party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the iling o the
complaint or inormation, and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or
are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.

1he term o prescription shall not run when the oender is absent rom the
Philipppine Archipelago.

1he CA and respondent are o the iew that upon approal o the inestigating
prosecutor's recommendation or the iling o an inormation against respondent, the period o
prescription began to run again. 1he Court does not agree. It is a well-settled rule that the iling
o the complaint with the iscal`s oice suspends the running o the prescriptie period.

1he interests o the State and the oended party can not be prejudiced by the delay o
the Oice o the City Prosecutor in iling the Inormation in the Me1C. As held in Peote r.
Otarte, it is unjust to deprie the injured party o the right to obtain indication on account o
delays that are not under his control. All that the ictim o the oense may do on his part to
initiate the prosecution is to ile the requisite complaint. Instead, the more appropriate course o
action should be the iling o an administratie disciplinary action against the erring public
oicials.