Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17994)
Facts:
In Federico Batolanon and Teodoro V. Nano v. Hon. Roman A. Leorente, G.R. No. L-17994, August 31, 1963, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court, resolved whether a prosecution for light threat lay before a Justice of the Peace. Petitioners-appellants Federico Batolanon and Teodoro V. Nano sought relief against respondent-appellee Hon. Roman A. Leorente, Justice of the Peace of Tagum, Davao; the case was certified to the Court by the Court of Appeals as presenting only questions of law.On September 13, 1956, Federico Batolanon wrote a long letter to Attorney Irineo D. Benavides accusing Benavides of having fabricated and prosecuted criminal and civil suits against certain persons (to shield another party) and demanding P1,000 in damages and an apology within ten days, failing which Batolanon threatened to initiate disbarment proceedings. On December 10, 1956, Chief of Police Jose V. Bosque filed a complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tagum charging Batolanon with light threat (Criminal Case No. 1190). The complaint was amended on December 21, 1956 to include Teodoro V. Nano as a co-defendant, based on an affidavit alleging Nano wrote the letter, and was again amended on April 30, 1957 to allege that the demanded P1,000 had not been paid.
The defendants moved to quash (filed December 29, 1956), arguing among other grounds that the alleged facts did not constitute light threat, that more than one offense (light threat and libel) were charged, and that the offense had prescribed; the Justice of the Peace denied the motions (orders of January 7, 1957 and March 4, 1957) and also denied subsequent motions for reconsideration (June 15, 1957). On June 24, 1957 the defendants filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Davao (Civil Case No. 2383), seeking to enjoin the Justice of the Peace and to have the proceedings certified to the CFI. The CFI issued a preliminary injunction on June 29, 1957 and required the Justice of the Peace to answer.
After the parties submitted the case on the pleadings, the CFI rendered judgment on November 19, 1957 dismissing the petition and holding that (1) the crime charged had not prescribed and (2) the Justice of the Peace had jurisdiction to hear and decide the ca...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the facts alleged in the complaint state the crime of light threat such that the Justice of the Peace had jurisdiction to hear the case?
- If the facts did constitute light threat, had the offense prescribed prior to the filing of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)