Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
May 18, 1994 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
32[10]
Despite the fact that the Metropolitan Trial Court had no jurisdiction over
the crime of libel, the said court proceeded to conduct trial on the
merits. After the prosecution had rested, petitioner filed a Demurrer to
Evidence dated September 18, 1996. However, instead of acting on the
said demurrer, the Metropolitan Trial court, on November 08, 1996, issued
an Order[11] ruling that it had no jurisdiction over the crime of libel as the
same falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court. Instead of dismissing the case outright, the MTC ordered the
forwarding of the records of the case to the Regional Trial Court for further
proceedings. The case was eventually raffled off to Branch 215 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City[12]
On the basis of a Motion to Dismiss[13] filed by petitioner, Branch 215 of
the Regional Trial Court dismissed the case on April 2, 1997 on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction as the information against petitioner should have been
re-filed anew. The court ruled, however, that the crime had not yet
prescribed and ordered the re-filling of the case[14]. On April 27, 1997, the
Office of the City Prosecutor re-filed the case with the Regional Trial Court
and eventually the same was raffled to Branch 218 of the said court [15].
Petitioner tried to have this case dismissed on the ground of prescription
but her motion to quash[16]the information was denied by Branch 218 of the
Quezon City Regional Trial Court in a Resolution[17]dated October 3,
1997. The denial by the Regional Trial Court of petitioners motion to quash
was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeals.
It is the contention of petitioner that the prescription period for the crime
of libel charged against her commenced to run again when the Assistant
City prosecutor recommended the filing of the information for
libel. Petitioner further argues that the prescriptive period could have been
interrupted again had the information been filed with the Regional Trial
Court, the court with the proper jurisdiction to try the case for
libel. Considering however that the case was filed before the Metropolitan
Trial Court, which under the law does not have jurisdiction over the crime of
libel, the period of prescription continued to run its course. Consequently,
petitioner concludes that when the information for libel was finally filed with
the Regional Trial Court, the crime had already prescribed and the State
can no longer pursue the case against her.
in which the complaint or information is filed must have the power to convict or
acquit the accused. Precisely, the trial on the merits usually terminates in
conviction or acquittal, not otherwise. But it is in the court conducting a
preliminary investigation where the proceedings may terminate without conviction
or acquittal, if the court should discharge the accused because no prima facie case
had been shown.
Subsequently,
this
Court,
in Francisco
vs.
Court
of
[19]
Appeals , broadened the scope of Olarte by holding that the filing of the
complaint with the fiscals office also suspends the running of the
prescriptive period.
Petitioner insists that the ruling in Olarte with respect to the interruption
of the prescriptive period is not applicable. In the case at bench, the fact
that the period of prescription was interrupted by the filing of private
respondents joint affidavit with the Quezon City Prosecutors Office is not
disputed. The Olarte case, however, makes several other pronouncements
that are determinative of the issues raised by petitioner.
It is clear from the Olarte case that the filing of the complaint or
information for purposes of preliminary investigation represents the initial
step of the proceedings against the offender. This is one of the reasons
why such filing is deemed as having interrupted the period of prescription
for the prosecution of a crime. This period of prescription commences to
run again when the proceedings terminate without conviction or acquittal, if
the court (or prosecutor) should discharge the accused because no prima
facie case has been shown.[20]
It is thus evident that petitioners first premise that the period of
prescription commenced to run again when the Quezon City prosecutors
Office recommended the filing of a criminal complaint against her is
incorrect. When the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of libel
charges against petitioner, the proceedings against her were not
terminated, precisely because a prima facie case for libel was found
against her. Instead of terminating the proceedings against petitioner, the
resolution of the city prosecutor actually directed the continuation of the
proceedings against the petitioner by the filing of the appropriate
information against her and by the holding of trial on the merits. As such,
when the information for libel was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court, the
period of prescription for the crime was still suspended.
which had the proper jurisdiction over the case. This mistake should not
operate to prejudice the interest of the state to prosecute criminal offenses
and, more importantly, the right of the offended party to obtain grievance.
Moreover, the doctrine in People vs. Olarte, as applied in later cases,
was not meant to apply solely to cases where the filing of the complaint
with the municipal trial court or the prosecutors office operates to interrupt
the prescription period for the prosecution of a crime.
In People vs. Galano[25], an information was filed with the Batangas
Regional Trial Court even though the evidence of both the prosecution and
defense shows that the crime was committed in Manila. This Court,
applying People vs. Olarte, held that it was only when the trial court
dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction that the proceedings therein
terminated without conviction and acquittal and it was only then that the
prescriptive period (which was interrupted during the during the pendency
of the case in the Batangas Court) commenced to run again.
In People vs. Enrile[26], informations were filed against civilians before
military tribunals which had no jurisdiction over the persons of these
civilians. These civilians questioned the re-filing of the cases against them
before the civil courts raising, among others, that the crimes for which they
are being charged have already prescribed. This Court, applying by
analogy the ruling in the Olarte case, threw out the defense of prescription
and held that the filing of the first indictments suspended the running of the
prescriptive period, and the prosecutions under the informations to be filed
should be regarded as mere continuations of the previous proceedings. At
the very least, the Court ruled, the filing of the first charges should be
considered as having interrupted the prescriptive period notwithstanding
the lack of jurisdiction of the military tribunal in which they were filed.
More recently, in the case of Reodica vs. Court of Appeals[27], an
information for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with
slight physical injuries was filed with the Regional Trial Court even though
the offense was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal trial
court. The Court, even as it dismissed the cases pending before the
Regional Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction, disregarded the defense of
prescription raised by the accused. The Court, citing Olarte and the
subsequent cases of Francisco vs. Court of Appeals[28] and People vs.
Cuaresma[29], ruled that the prescriptive period for the quasi offenses in
question was interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the fiscals office
three days after the vehicular mishap and remained tolled pending the
termination of the case.
From these cases, it is clear that the Apellate Court committed no
reversible error in ruling that the offense of libel charged against petitioner
had not yet prescribed. The period of prescription for the crime was
interrupted when the complaint was lodged with the Office of the City
Prosecutor and remained tolled pending the termination of the case against
petitioner. Branch 218 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
therefore, correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case of petitioner as the
offense of libel for which she was being charged has not yet prescribed.
Petitioners other argument that she has been denied her right to a
speedy trial deserves scant consideration. Well-established is the doctrine
that the right to a speedy trial is violated only where there is an
unreasonable, vexatious and oppressive delay without participation or fault
of the accused, or when unjustified postponements are sought which
prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time[30]. In the case at bench,
besides the filing of the petitions before the Court of Appeals and this
Court, petitioner had likewise filed a Motion to Quash and a Motion for
Reconsideration with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
218. As such, it is clear that petitioner is not without fault in the delay in the
prosecution of the case against her.
Wherefore, the petition is hereby DENIED, and the decision of the
Court of Appeals dated May 1, 1999 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.
[1]
[2]
Twelfth Division composed of the ponente, J. Portia Alino-Hormachuelos; and the members,
J. Buenaventura J. Guerrerro and J. Teodoro P. Regino, concurring.
[3]
Rollo, p. 28.
[4]
[5]
Rollo, p. 25.
[6]
[7]
Rollo, p. 14.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
19 SCRA 494.
[19]
[20]
People vs. Olarte, supra; also cited in David vs. Santos, 31 SCRA 788 and Francisco vs.
Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 538.
[21]
An Act Expanding the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise
known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
[22]
[23]
[24]
People vs. Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 32, 265 SCRA 645.
[25]
75 SCRA 193.
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]