Title
People vs. Uba
Case
G.R. No. L-13106
Decision Date
Oct 16, 1959
A case involving serious oral defamation, dismissed due to procedural errors, was reinstated by the Supreme Court, ruling the crime had not prescribed as the prescriptive period was interrupted by the initial filing.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-13106)

Procedural History

On August 1, 1952, Demetria Somod-ong filed her complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court in Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental, leading to Criminal Case No. 3415. The initial investigation initiated by the court resulted in the elevation of the case to the Court of First Instance after finding probable cause. However, a clerical mistake occurred when Pastora Somod-ong was erroneously identified as the offended party, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the case.

Supreme Court Ruling on Initial Dismissal

The Government appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the trial court’s dismissal due to the variant allegations. In People vs. Juliana Uba and Calixta Uba, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence indicated the Uba sisters were guilty of defamation against Demetria Somod-ong, prompting a directive for the Provincial Fiscal to file a new information correctly identifying Demetria as the offending party.

Filing of Second Complaint and Trial Court Dismissal

The Provincial Fiscal subsequently filed a new complaint on June 12, 1956, under Criminal Case No. 4239, targeting the Uba sisters for the serious oral defamation against Demetria Somod-ong. The defense counsel moved for dismissal on the grounds of double jeopardy and prescription. The trial court, without ruling on double jeopardy, dismissed the case on September 5, 1957, citing the expiration of the six-month prescription period per Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, claiming that the crime had prescribed since more than four years elapsed from the date of the alleged offense.

Analysis of Prescription Period

The trial court's dismissal, however, overlooked Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, which pertains to the computation of the prescription of offenses. The pertinent clause states that the prescriptive period starts from when the crime is discovered and is interrupted upon the filing of a complaint. In this instance, from July 25, 1952, to August 1, 1952, only seven days had elapsed until the complaint was lodged. Following the Supreme Court’s decision on Ma

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.