G.R. No. 195026 - Central Mindanao University vs. Republic

The defendant, Juan del Rosario, then serving as a policeman, was charged in an information filed on October 24, 1957, with maltreatment of a detention prisoner.
The offense was alleged to have occurred on or about March 28, 1957, in the Municipality of Naguilian, Province of La Union.

It was charged that Juan del Rosario took and confined Emilio Sy as a detention prisoner in the municipal jail.
The defendant was accused of willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously maltreating Emilio Sy by:

As a consequence, Emilio Sy sustained injuries on various parts of his body which necessitated medical treatment for three to four days.

After trial, the lower court found Juan del Rosario guilty of mauling Emilio Sy and inflicting the injuries, but only convicted him of slight physical injuries under Article 266, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code.
The conviction for the lighter offense was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to establish that the victim was a detention prisoner under the charge originally filed.
The defendant was sentenced to 15 days of arresto menor, plus costs.

Juan del Rosario appealed the lower court’s decision, admitting liability for slight physical injuries but contending that the crime had already prescribed.
He argued that the information was filed more than six months after the commission of the offense, which was well beyond the two-month prescriptive period provided for light offenses.
The Solicitor General argued that the filing of the complaint or accusation with the office of the Provincial Fiscal for preliminary investigation, which occurred before April 25, 1957, had interrupted the running of the prescriptive period.

The crux of the defense was that, under Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the prescriptive period for light offenses commenced from the discovery of the crime and should be interrupted only by a complaint or information properly filed in court.
The appellant relied heavily on the governing principle laid down in People vs. Tayco (73 Phil., 509) that only a complaint/information filed in the proper court, and not a denuncia or an accusation lodged merely with the Fiscal’s Office, interrupts the prescriptive period.

Whether the crime of slight physical injuries, being a light offense, is barred by prescription because the information was filed beyond the two-month prescriptive period.
Whether the filing of the complaint with the office of the Provincial Fiscal for preliminary investigation can be considered as a valid interruption of the prescriptive period under the provisions of Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the legal requirement that a complaint or information be filed in the proper court, and not merely with the Fiscal’s Office, should apply in determining the interruption of the prescriptive period.