Title
People vs. Castro
Case
G.R. No. L-6407
Decision Date
Jul 29, 1954
Pascual Castro punched Apolonio Bustos, causing injuries. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling the crime prescribed under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, as the complaint was filed over two months later. Prescription defense was not waived despite procedural rules.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6407)

Facts:

People of the Philippines v. Pascual Castro, G.R. No. L-6407, July 29, 1954, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.

The complainant, Apolonio Bustos, was the head teacher of the barrio school of San Jose, Macabebe, Pampanga; the accused and appellant, Pascual Castro, was also a teacher in the same school. On the morning of January 19, 1952, while Bustos was going to hear mass he encountered a group that included Castro; a verbal exchange ensued and Castro allegedly struck Bustos in the face with a fist, inflicting injuries requiring five days' medical attendance.

A complaint for slight physical injuries was filed by Bustos before the Justice of the Peace (Macabebe) on April 14, 1952. After trial, the justice of the peace found Castro guilty and sentenced him to fifteen days of arresto menor and costs. Castro appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) and entered a plea of not guilty. After pleading but before trial on the merits, Castro moved to dismiss on the ground that the offense had prescribed; the CFI ignored that motion, proceeded with trial and evidence, and again found him guilty with the same penalty.

Castro appealed to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General contended that by failing to move to quash before pleading Castro waived the defense of prescription under Rule 113, sec. 10, of the Rules of Court; the prosecution also suggested the prescription period might have been interrupted by an earlier complaint for attempted homicide which had been dismissed on March 27, 1952, but the record did not show when that earlier complaint had been filed. The Supr...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Does failure to move to quash before pleading under Rule 113, sec. 10, of the Rules of Court operate as a waiver of the defense of prescription?
  • On the facts presented (crime committed January 19, 1952; criminal complaint filed April 14, 1952), had the offense of slight physical...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.