G.R. No. L-6407 - People vs. Castro

Apolonio Bustos, the head teacher of the barrio school in San Jose, Macabebe, Pampanga, and Pascual Castro, a teacher in the same school, were the primary parties.
On the morning of January 19, 1952, while Bustos was on his way to the barrio chapel to hear mass, he encountered a group of persons including Castro.
During the encounter, after Bustos invited Castro to join him in hearing mass, a discussion ensued which culminated in Castro delivering a fist blow to Bustos’ face, causing physical injuries.

The injuries sustained by Bustos were severe enough to require medical attention for a period of five days.
On April 14, 1952, a criminal complaint for slight physical injuries was filed against Castro before the Justice of the Peace Court of Macabebe, Pampanga.
After trial in the lower court, Castro was found guilty and was sentenced to fifteen days of arresto menor and to pay the costs.

Castro, having pleaded not guilty in the Court of First Instance following the lower court’s decision, moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that the offense had prescribed.
The motion centered on the fact that the alleged offense occurred on January 19, 1952, yet the complaint was filed on April 14, 1952—after the two-month prescription period applicable to light offenses (under Article 90, Revised Penal Code).
Despite raising this motion, the trial court proceeded with the trial, ultimately reiterating the same penalty imposed by the inferior court.

The accused’s motion to dismiss based on prescription was challenged by the prosecution, which argued that under Rule 113, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, failure to move to quash before pleading constituted a waiver of the prescription defense.
The case referenced People vs. Moran, 44 Phil. 387, as a precedent where the defense of prescription was allowed to be raised at a later stage provided that prescription was an express substantive limitation on the State’s right to prosecute.
There was also a reference to a possible interruption of the prescription period through a criminal complaint for attempted homicide; however, the record did not supply sufficient data to give this point serious consideration.

Whether the failure of the accused to move to quash the information on the ground of prescription before pleading constitutes a waiver of the defense of prescription.
Whether the prescriptive period for a light offense, which is two months as provided under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, had already elapsed in view of the dates of the incident (January 19, 1952) and the filing of the complaint (April 14, 1952).
How the application of Rule 113, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, interacts with the substantive provision in Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code regarding the extinguishment of criminal liability by prescription.
Whether the precedent set in People vs. Moran can be applied to the present case despite the later adoption of the current Rules of Court.