Case Digest (G.R. No. 218964)
Facts:
Vivian G. Ginete, then officer-in-charge of the PESS Division of the DECS Regional Office in Cebu City, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman-Visayas) a complaint for grave oral defamation allegedly committed on 23 September 1993 by Susan V. Llenes, an Education Supervisor II of the same regional office. Llenes failed to file a counter-affidavit as required, and after the Ombudsman proceeded, the City Prosecutor of Cebu filed the corresponding information with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), docketed as Criminal Case No. 35684-R, for grave oral defamation.Llenes moved to quash on the ground that the offense had prescribed, arguing that the filing of the information on 28 March 1994 was beyond the six-month prescriptive period. Both the MTC and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion; the RTC held that the filing with the Ombudsman interrupted prescription and that the remedy was to go to trial. Llenes then filed a Rule 65 petition, insisting the prescript
Case Digest (G.R. No. 218964)
Facts:
- Background and parties
- Private respondent Vivian G. Ginete was then officer-in-charge of the Physical Education and School Sports (PESS) Division of the Regional Office of Region VII in Cebu City of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS).
- Petitioner Susan V. Llenes was an Education Supervisor II of the same Regional Office.
- Private respondent filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65; petitioner sought relief against orders of:
- Hon. Isaias P. Dicdican, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 11;
- Hon. Amado B. Bajarias, Sr., Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 7; and
- Vivian G. Ginete (as private respondent in the criminal matter).
- Filing of the administrative/ombudsman complaint and prosecution before the trial court
- On 13 October 1993, private respondent filed with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas (Ombudsman-Visayas) a complaint for grave oral defamation, alleging commission on 23 September 1993, against petitioner.
- Petitioner was required to file a counter-affidavit pursuant to Administrative Order No. 7 of the Office of the Ombudsman, but she failed to do so.
- In a resolution dated 15 March 1994, Antonio B. Yap, Graft Investigation Officer I of the Ombudsman-Visayas, recommended indorsement to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu City for filing of the necessary information.
- The Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas approved the resolution.
- On 28 March 1994, the City Prosecutor of Cebu City filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Cebu City an information for grave oral defamation, docketed as Criminal Case No. 35684-R, assigned to Branch 7.
- Motion to quash and lower court dispositions
- On 30 May 1994, petitioner filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that criminal liability was extinguished due to prescription.
- Petitioner argued prescription based on Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, asserting that grave oral defamation prescribes in months, and since the information was filed on 28 March 1994 or 186 days (6 months and 6 days) after alleged commission, the crime had already prescribed.
- Petitioner cited Zalderia [vs. Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 277] to support the proposition that filing of an information at the fiscal’s office would not stop the running of the prescriptive period.
- Private respondent opposed, citing Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which provides that for offenses within the jurisdiction of the MTC/Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and not covered by summary procedure, filing of the complaint directly with the court or with the fiscal’s office interrupts prescription.
- Private respondent asserted that the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman-Visayas was equivalent to filing with the fiscal’s/prosecutor’s office under Section 15(1) of R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989).
- Private respondent further argued that Zaldivia (as invoked by petitioner) was inapplicable because it involved an offense covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure and because Section 1, Rule 110 expressly excludes cases covered by summary procedure.
- The MTC, presided over by Judge Bajarias, denied the motion to quash in an order dated 18 July 1994.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration; the MTC denied the motion on 29 November 1994.
- Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the RTC of Cebu, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-16988, assigned to Branch 11, presided over by Judge Dicdican.
- On 3 July 1995, the RTC affirmed the challenged MTC orders of 18 July 1994 and 29 November 1994.
- The RTC ruled:
- The order denying the motion to quash was interlocutory; and
- Petitioner’s remedy, per Acharon vs. Purisima as reiterated in People vs. Bans, was to proceed to trial without prejudice to reiterate the special defense and, if an adverse decision was rendered, to appeal as authorized by law.
- The RTC also reasoned that petitioner failed to show grave abuse of discretion by Judge Bajarias because the invoked ground did not appear indubitable.
- The RTC added that even if the MTC erred in opining that filing with the Office of the Ombudsman is equivalent to filing with the fiscal’s office, such would be an error of judgment, given:
- No decided case directly settled the matter; and
- Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code merely states that prescription is interrupted by the “filing of the complaint or information” without specifying where it must be filed.
- After the RTC denied reconsideration on an order dated 23 August 1995, petitioner filed the present special civil action before the Supreme Court, reiterating the prior arguments.
- Arguments on prescription and the alleged conflicting jurisprudence
- Petitioner reiterated the position that grave oral defamation prescribes in six months, relying on:
-
...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Primary issue on interruption of prescription
- Whether the filing with the Office of the Ombudsman of a complaint against a public officer for grave oral defamation interrupts the period of prescription of the offense.
- Related issues on computation of prescription and effect of filing forums
- Whether the prescriptive period for grave oral defamation was correctly reckoned as six months (180 days), considering Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code and Article 13 of the Civil Code.
- Whether Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code is satisfied by the filing of a complaint in the Ombudsman-Visayas, despite the later filing of the information in court.
- Whether the Court should apply or distinguish prior jurisprudence on interruption of prescription depending on the filing forum,...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)