G.R. No. 119063 - Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 119063)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Initial affidavit of complaint filed: August 28, 1991
Information for bigamy filed: January 8, 1992, based on an information dated November 15, 1991
The crime allegedly committed before February 2, 1957
Bigamy penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), with prescriptive period governed by Article 91 and Article 92 of the RPC
Constitution applicable: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered in 1997)

Facts and Procedural History

Jose Garcia charged Adela Santos with bigamy, claiming he discovered her prior marriage to Reynaldo Quiroca in 1989. However, the private respondent filed a motion to quash the information on March 2, 1992, asserting that the offense had prescribed. The private respondent relied on petitioner’s own testimony from a prior civil case and a civil service complaint which indicated petitioner discovered the earlier marriage as early as 1974. Given that the penalty for bigamy, an afflictive penalty, prescribes in 15 years under the RPC, the private respondent argued that the prescriptive period began running in 1974 and thus expired in 1989.

Trial Court Rulings

The RTC granted the motion to quash on June 29, 1992, holding that the offense had prescribed. The court rejected the prosecution’s argument that prescription should start only when evidence was obtained, citing Article 91 of the RPC which states prescription commences from the day the crime is discovered. The court further denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, determining that the private respondent’s travel abroad did not amount to absence sufficient to interrupt prescription.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision, agreeing that the prescriptive period began in 1974 when petitioner learned of the respondent’s first marriage. Since the information was filed in 1992, the 15-year prescription period had elapsed. It also confirmed that the prescription of an offense extinguishes criminal liability and can be raised at any time, even on appeal.

Issues Raised on Petition for Review

Whether bigamy, being a public offense, prescribes only from the State’s discovery of the crime.
Whether a motion to quash may rely on facts beyond those appearing in the information.
Whether the factual bases for the motion to quash were conclusive.
Whether the prescriptive period was interrupted by the private respondent’s trips abroad.

Analysis on Whether Bigamy Prescription Starts from State or Offended Party’s Discovery

The Court clarified that although bigamy is a public offense, the offended party is not solely the State but also includes the individual(s) against whom the offense is committed. Article 91, RPC states prescription begins from discovery by “the offended party, the authorities, or their agents,” applying equally to public and private crimes. The term “offended party” under Rule 110, Section 12, Rules of Court refers to “the person against whom the offense was committed,” typically the one entitled to civil damages. Since both the petitioner and the respondent’s first spouse may be offended parties, prescription runs from the offended party’s discovery of the crime. Here, petitioner himself was identified as the offended party in the information, and the discovery occurred in 1974.

On the Scope of a Motion to Quash Based on Prescription

Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, a motion to quash may go beyond the allegations in the information to present factual and legal grounds, including prescription which constitutes extinction of criminal liability. The repeal argument was refuted, citing that while the new Rule 117 of the Rules of Court no longer explicitly enumerates the contents of motions to quash, Section 2 of the Rule allows factual and legal grounds to be presented. Jurisprudence such as People v. De la Rosa permits consideration of facts outside the information if admitted or not denied by the prosecution.

On the Conclusiveness of the Factual Bases for the Motion to Quash

The petitioner’s attempt to discredit his prior testimony and complaint as vague or hearsay was rejected. The Court held that petitioner cannot repudiate sworn statements to avoid unfavorable consequences. Whether or not petitioner fully verified the identity of the prior marriage, the relevant fact is that petitioner received information in 1974 about the respondent’s existing prior marriage.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 119063)

Facts of the Case

Petitioner Jose G. Garcia filed an Affidavit of Complaint on August 28, 1991, with the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office, initially charging his wife, private respondent Adela Teodora P. Santos aka "Delia Santos," with Bigamy, Violation of C.A. No. 142 (as amended by R.A. No. 6085), and Falsification of Public Documents.
On October 10, 1991, Garcia limited his complaint to bigamy only.
An information was filed on January 8, 1992, charging Santos with bigamy allegedly committed on or before February 2, 1957, while still legally married to Reynaldo Quiroca.
Santos filed a Motion to Quash on March 2, 1992, based on the prescription of the offense.
Garcia’s own testimony in a civil case and a complaint filed with the Civil Service Commission revealed he discovered the prior marriage in 1974.
Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) prescribes that the prescription period runs from discovery of the crime by the offended party.
Bigamy is punishable by prision mayor, classified as an afflictive penalty prescribed in fifteen years per Article 92 of the RPC.
The trial court granted the motion to quash on June 29, 1992, ruling that the offense prescribed because more than 15 years had elapsed since discovery in 1974.
The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied; his arguments included interruption of prescription due to the private respondent’s many trips abroad.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling, agreeing that the prescriptive period ran from 1974 and had elapsed by the filing date of the information in 1992.
Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

Issue Raised

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the trial court’s order granting the motion to quash based on prescription.
Whether prescription for bigamy, a public offense, should run from the discovery by the State or the offended party.
Whether a motion to quash may consider facts beyond the contents of the information.
Whether the petitioner’s arguments that the prescriptive period was interrupted by the private respondent’s travels abroad have merit.

Procedural History

Initial filing of Bigamy complaint by petitioner on August 28, 1991.
Filing of information on January 8, 1992, charging private respondent with Bigamy.
Motion to Quash filed by private respondent on March 2, 1992, based on prescription.
Trial court granted motion to quash on June 29, 1992.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
Appeal filed with Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 14324).
Court of Appeals affirmed trial court decision on February 13, 1995.
Petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court challenging the CA decision.

Legal Provisions and Rules Involved

Revised Penal Code (RPC) Article 91: Prescription of offenses runs from date of discovery by offended party, authorities, or their agents; prescription period is interrupted