Case Digest (G.R. No. L-41692)
Facts:
Cabral v. Puno, G.R. No. L-41692, April 30, 1976, Supreme Court Second Division, Antonio, J., writing for the Court. Petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the trial court's order of May 21, 1975 reinstating a criminal Information and to bar further proceedings.
On complaint of private respondent Silvino San Diego, the Provincial Fiscal filed an Information on September 24, 1974 in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Baliwag Branch, charging petitioner Eugenio Cabral with falsification of a public document for allegedly forging San Diego’s signature on a deed of sale dated August 14, 1948 (registered August 26, 1948). Before arraignment, Cabral filed a motion to quash the Information on the ground that the offense had prescribed, supported by factual averments that the deed had long been registered and that Cabral had publicly possessed the property since then.
Judge Juan F. Echiverri, in a Resolution dated March 25, 1975, granted the motion to quash and dismissed the Information on prescription, the court finding the motion’s factual averments supported by evidence. The private prosecutor (representing San Diego) was not present at that hearing and on April 8, 1975 filed a motion for reconsideration; Cabral opposed, asserting that San Diego had lost the right to intervene because he had earlier (May 2, 1974) filed a civil action for recovery of the same property.
When Judge Benigno M. Puno later presided, he ordered the Fiscal on May 12, 1975 to state his position; the Fiscal filed a comment on May 19, 1975 asserting that the crime had not prescribed and urging arraignment and trial. On May 21, 1975 Judge Puno set aside the March 25 dismissal and reinstated the Information. Cabral’s motions for reconsideration were denied (including a second motion), prompting this petition to the Court seeking annulling of the May 21 order and prohibition against further proceedings.
The Solicitor General was required to appear and recommended granting the petition, arguing that the March 25 Resolution had become final and executory (the Fiscal received a copy March 31, ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court have jurisdiction to set aside its March 25, 1975 Resolution dismissing the Information on the ground of prescription?
- Could the offended party/private prosecutor, Silvino San Diego, by motion for reconsideration or filing a civil action, interrupt the period for appealing the dismissal or otherwise retain the right to interv...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)