Case Digest (G.R. No. 103259-61)
Facts:
This is Hon. Adelina Calderon-Bargas, in her capacity as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal, and Bennett LL. Thelmo v. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 162, Hon. Manuel S. Padolina, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Salvador Lacson, Raul L. Locsin and Leticia Locsin, G.R. Nos. 103259-61, promulgated October 01, 1993, Supreme Court Second Division, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (the provincial prosecutor in her official capacity and private complainant Bennett LL. Thelmo) sought review of respondent Trial Court’s orders dated 30 August 1991 and 16 December 1991 in Criminal Case Nos. 73490–92, which granted motions to quash informations for libel filed against private respondents Salvador Lacson, Raul L. Locsin and Leticia Locsin. The three private respondents were respectively columnist, editor and managing editor of the newspaper Business Day; an article titled “Insurance Monopoly” was published on April 7, 1987 and allegedly libeled Thelmo.
On April 10, 1987 Thelmo filed an affidavit-complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal and Assistant Prosecutor Celestino Simon, Jr. conducted the preliminary investigation. On February 8, 1988 the prosecutor recommended filing of three informations, which were filed on May 23, 1988 and assigned to Branch 162 of the RTC. Respondent Salvador Lacson moved to quash on October 18, 1988 on prescription grounds; the trial court ordered the prosecutor to file comment within 15 days (October 19, 1988). The prosecution sought several extensions but ultimately did not file comment.
On January 3, 1991 the trial court granted the motion to quash for prescription. The private complainant moved for reconsideration and on May 3, 1991 the trial court reinstated the informations citing authorities (e.g., Francisco v. Court of Appeals) that filing with the fiscal interrupts prescription. Thereafter, on August 30, 1991 the trial court granted respondents’ motion for reconsideration and again dismissed the informations on the grounds of prescription and violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial; the co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion when he ordered the quashal of the three informations?
- Did the prosecution’s prolonged inaction violate the accused’s constitutional right to a speedy trial such that dismissal of the cases was warranted?
- Did the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor on April 10, 1987 interrupt the prescriptive period so that the informati...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)