G.R. No. 119063 - Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

On August 28, 1991, petitioner Jose G. Garcia filed an "Affidavit of Complaint" with the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office, charging his wife, private respondent Adela Teodora P. Santos alias "Delia Santos," with bigamy, violation of C.A. No. 142 as amended by R.A. No. 6085, and falsification of public documents.
In a letter dated October 10, 1991, petitioner limited the action to bigamy only.
On January 8, 1992, the Assistant Prosecutor filed an information dated November 15, 1991, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City charging Santos with bigamy allegedly committed on or before February 2, 1957, by contracting a second marriage with petitioner while still legally married to Reynaldo Quiroca.
The information was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-92-27272.

On March 2, 1992, private respondent filed a Motion to Quash based on prescription of the offense.
Respondent argued that petitioner discovered the offense as early as 1974 through petitioner’s testimony in Civil Case No. 90-52730 and a complaint filed with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on October 16, 1991.
Prescription runs from the time of discovery pursuant to Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and bigamy being punishable by prision mayor, an afflictive penalty, prescribed after 15 years (Article 92, RPC). Since the offense was discovered in 1974, prescription occurred in 1989, before filing of the information in 1991.
Petitioner’s testimony revealed knowledge in 1974 about the private respondent’s previous marriage to Reynaldo Quiroca.
The CSC complaint also stated petitioner discovered the prior marriage in 1974 and separation resulted from the private respondent’s illicit relations.

On June 29, 1992, the trial court granted the motion to quash, ruling the offense had prescribed since discovery in 1974.
The trial court rejected the prosecution's argument that prescription should start when evidence was secured.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration citing private respondent’s numerous trips abroad which allegedly interrupted the prescriptive period.
Supporting certification from the Bureau of Immigration detailed multiple brief foreign trips between 1977 and 1988 by private respondent.
The trial court denied reconsideration, holding that the trips did not constitute absence from the Philippines sufficient to interrupt prescription.

Bigamy is a public offense and prescription should run from State’s discovery in 1991, not petitioner’s discovery.
Counsel for private respondent was barred from filing motion to quash.
The factual bases for the motion to quash were inconclusive.
The prescriptive period was interrupted by private respondent’s trips abroad.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding prescription started in 1974 when petitioner discovered private respondent’s first marriage. The information filed in 1992 was thus beyond the 15-year period.
It further held that prescription extinguishes criminal liability and may be raised even on appeal.
The Court rejected the argument that the private respondent’s counsel lacked authority to file the motion to quash.

Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking to annul the Court of Appeals decision and remand the case for further proceedings.
Petitioner reiterated arguments on prescription counting from State’s discovery, limits on motions to quash, inconclusiveness of the factual bases for quashal, and interruption of prescription by private respondent’s absence abroad.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s order granting the motion to quash the information on the ground of prescription.
Whether the prescriptive period for bigamy, a public offense, commences from discovery by the State or by the offended party.
Whether a motion to quash a criminal information based on prescription can be supported by facts outside the information itself.
Whether the petitioner’s prior testimony and complaint filed with the Civil Service Commission conclusively establish discovery of the offense in 1974.
Whether private respondent’s multiple brief trips abroad interrupted the running of the prescriptive period.
Whether the private respondent’s counsel had authority to file the motion to quash the information.