Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25265)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Socorro C. Ramos, G.R. No. L-25265; and Socorro C. Ramos v. Hon. Placido Ramos and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-25644, May 09, 1978, Supreme Court Second Division, Santos, J., writing for the Court (Barredo, Acting Chairman; Antonio and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concurring; Fernando and Aquino, JJ., did not take part; Guerrero, J., designated to sit).The criminal informations in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila (Criminal Case Nos. 80006, Branch III, and 80007, Branch XIV) charged Socorro C. Ramos (defendant) with selling and distributing allegedly pirated editions of a high‑school textbook copyrighted by Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. The alleged sales took place between July and September 1963; the informations were filed September 3, 1965, invoking Act No. 3134 (the Copyright Law, Sec. 24) which prescribes a two‑year period for actions arising under the statute.
On September 7, 1965 Ramos filed motions to quash in both cases asserting prescription, contending the cause of action arose as early as July 17, 1963 or, alternatively, that the last invoiced sale occurred August 30, 1963; she further argued that, because 1964 was a leap year, two years equaled 730 days so that the 730th day fell on September 2, 1965 and the informations filed on September 3, 1965 were late. The prosecution opposed, asserting (1) that prescription was premature to determine before trial and (2) that the offense was continuing so the prescriptive period ran from the last act (allegedly September 3, 1963), which would make the informations timely.
Judge Jesus De Veyra of Branch XIV granted Ramos’s motion to quash on October 7, 1965, holding the prosecution was one day late because 1964 was a leap year. The People appealed. Judge Placido Ramos of Branch III denied the motion to quash on December 23, 1965, finding the prescriptive period commenced on September 4, 1963 (date of police seizure) or that, if from September 3, 1963, the two‑year period expired on September 3, 1965 (rejecting the leap‑day calculation). Ramos sought certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in this Court (G.R. No. L‑25644); this Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction on February 11, 1966 and consolidated the two cases.
On appeal (G.R. No. L‑25265) the Solicitor General recommended affirmance of the quash; Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. moved to intervene to defend its rights and raise additional arguments (including application of Act No. 3326, interruption by preliminary investigation, and leap‑day computation). The parties briefed whether (a) certiorari/prohibition was proper to review an order d...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition proper to review a trial court’s denial of a motion to quash an information on grounds of prescription?
- Does Act No. 3326’s four‑year prescriptive rule apply to offenses under the Copyright Law (Act No. 3134, Sec. 24) that prescribe in two years?
- In computing the two‑year prescriptive period running from September 3, 1963, must February 28 and 29, 1964 be counted as one day or as two separate days, and did the informations filed on September 3, 1965 prescribe?
- Did preliminary investigation or reporting to the fiscal interrupt the running of prescription, or should prescription be computed from September 4, 1963...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)