Case Digest (G.R. No. L-57103)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Antonio A. Orcullo and Venida Peralta alias Edat Peralta, G.R. No. 57103, January 30, 1982, First Division, Fernandez, J., writing for the Court. The petition was filed by the City Fiscal and Assistant City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro City seeking certiorari relief to set aside an order of dismissal and to have Criminal Case No. 40117 reinstated and tried on the merits.
On September 4, 1978, a special counsel in the Office of the City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro City filed an information in the City Court, Branch I, docketed as Criminal Case No. 40117, charging Venida Peralta alias Edat Peralta with oral defamation (Article 358, Revised Penal Code) for allegedly shouting on August 17, 1978 words which, in translation, were “A hostess and has a paramour, any kind of penis had penetrated your vagina,” directed at one Lydia Flores in public. Arraignment was held on November 3, 1978, when the accused pleaded not guilty.
On February 2, 1981, the accused filed a motion to quash on the ground that the utterance imputed the private crime of adultery and therefore could not be prosecuted de oficio but only upon complaint of the offended party (citing paragraph 5, Article 360, Revised Penal Code). On February 10, 1981, Acting City Judge Antonio A. Orcullo issued an order dismissing Criminal Case No. 40117 on that ground. The City Fiscal moved for reconsideration on February 27, 1981, but the respondent judge denied it on March 11, 1981.
The City Fiscal then filed the present petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court. The accused opposed the petition, reiterating that the words imputed adultery. The Solicitor General, in a comment, took the position that the remarks imputed prostitution rather than adultery, noting the term “hostess” and the phrase describing penetration plainly referred to prostitution—a public crime prosecutable de oficio—and cited precedents i...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 40117 by the Acting City Judge proper on the ground that the offense alleged was a private crime that could only be prosecuted upon complaint by the offended party?
- Did the words alleged in the information impute the commission of prostitution (a public crime) rather than adultery (a private crime), thereby per...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)