Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14711)
Facts:
On 28 August 1991 Jose G. Garcia filed an affidavit charging his wife Adela Teodora P. Santos with bigamy; an information dated 15 November 1991 was filed in the RTC of Quezon City on 8 January 1992 in Criminal Case No. Q-92-27272. On 2 March 1992 the private respondent moved to quash for prescription, alleging petitioner discovered the respondent's prior marriage in 1974; the trial court granted the motion on 29 June 1992 and the Court of Appeals affirmed on 13 February 1995, prompting petitioner’s petition to the Supreme Court.Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the grant of the motion to quash on the ground of prescription?
- Does the prescriptive period for bigamy begin to run only upon discovery by the State rather than by the offended party?
- May a motion to quash be supported by facts outside the allegations of the information to prove extinction of criminal liability by prescription?
- Did the private respondent’s intermittent trips abroad interrupt t
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14711)
Facts:
- Background of the dispute
- Jose G. Garcia, petitioner, filed an "Affidavit of Complaint" on 28 August 1991 with the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office charging his wife, 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.
- The petitioner advised by letter dated 10 October 1991 to Assistant City Prosecutor George F. Cabanilla that he would limit his action to Bigamy.
- Assistant Prosecutor Cabanilla filed an information on 8 January 1992 dated 15 November 1991 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, charging private respondent with Bigamy alleged to have been committed on or before 2 February 1957, and identifying the petitioner as the "offended party."
- The information was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-92-27272 and assigned to Branch 83 of the RTC.
- Motion to quash and trial court proceedings
- On 2 March 1992 the private respondent filed a Motion to Quash in the RTC alleging prescription as the ground and asserting that the petitioner discovered the prior marriage in 1974.
- The private respondent relied on the petitioner's testimony given on 23 January 1991 in Civil Case No. 90-52730 and on the petitioner's complaint filed with the Civil Service Commission on 16 October 1991, both of which the private respondent asserted showed discovery in 1974.
- The trial court, by order dated 29 June 1992, granted the motion to quash and dismissed the criminal case, ruling that bigamy is punishable by prision mayor (Art. 349, Revised Penal Code), an afflictive penalty (Art. 25), and therefore prescribes in 15 years under Article 92, Revised Penal Code; the trial court found discovery in 1974 and that the offense had prescribed by the filing of the information.
- The trial court rejected the prosecution's argument that prescription should be counted from the time evidence was secured and relied on Article 91, Revised Penal Code that prescription commences from the day the crime is discovered.
- The petitioner moved for reconsideration on 26 August 1992 and submitted supplements arguing that the private respondent's multiple trips abroad, as shown in a Bureau of Immigration certification, interrupted the running of prescription.
- The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration and held that the short and intermittent sojourns abroad did not constitute the absence contemplated in Article 91 that would interrupt prescription.
- Court of Appeals proceedings and ruling
- The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 14324, arguing that (a) Bigamy is a public offense and prescription should be counted from the State's discovery, (b) a motion to quash cannot go beyond the information which stated discovery in 1989, (c) the factual bases offered were inadmissible or inconclusive, and (d) prescription was interrupted by the accused's foreign trips.
- The Court of Appeals, in a decision of 13 February 1995, affirmed the trial court, crediting the private respondent's evidence and holding that the petitioner discovered the prior marriage in 1974 and that the 15-yea...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Nature and identification of the offended party for computation of prescription
- Whether, because Bigamy is a public offense, only the State may be the "offended party" for purposes of commencing the running of prescription under Article 91, Revised Penal Code.
- Scope of inquiry on a motion to quash based on extinction of criminal liability
- Whether a motion to quash predicated on extinction of criminal liability by prescription may be supported by facts outside the allegations of the information.
- Sufficiency and admissibility of the evidentiary bases relied upon by the private respondent
- Whether the petitioner's prior sworn testimony in Civil Case No. 90-52730 and the petitioner's CSC complaint of 16 October 1991 were conclusive and admissible to prove discovery in 1974.
- Effect of accus...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)