ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46562 September 13, 1939 - BARDWIL BROS. v. PHIL. LABOR UNION

    068 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 46673 September 13, 1939 - ANDRES P. GOSECO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 45596 September 18, 1939 - MARCOS LIPANA v. DOMlNGO LAO Y OTROS

    068 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46412 September 18, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOJI

    068 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46497 September 18, 1939 - ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    068 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46170 September 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN PUNTO

    068 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 46780 September 20, 1939 - FISCAL OF CAMARINES NORTE v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES NORTE

    068 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 46108 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU GALANTU MEDTED

    068 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 46109 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS CARPIO

    068 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46197 September 22, 1939 - KINKWA MERIYASU CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    068 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 46302 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORIBIO C. COSTES

    068 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 46578 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARQUEZ

    068 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46580 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    068 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46602 September 22, 1939 - YAP TAK WING & CO. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD

    068 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 46686 September 22, 1939 - TRANQUILINO RUBIS v. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES

    068 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 46715 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS

    068 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 46068 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ

    068 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 46650 September 23, 1939 - MARIO BENGZON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    068 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 46652 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    068 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. 46802-46812 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

    068 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 46739 September 23, 1939 - PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC. v. PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES UNION

    068 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46668 September 26, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS

    068 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 46729 September 25, 1939 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA PANTRANCO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 552

  • Adm. Case No. 879 September 27, 1939 - PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. TOMAS B. TADEO

    068 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 46080 September 27, 1939 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    068 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 46094 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL

    068 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 46237 September 27, 1939 - ROSALIO MARQUEZ v. BERNARDO CASTILLO

    068 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 46350 September 27, 1939 - TAN CHAY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 46470 September 27, 1939 - JUAN CASTILLO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    068 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 46539 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN DOQUEÑA

    068 Phil 580

  • G.R. Nos. 46553-46555 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON FABILLAR

    068 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 46615 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO AQUINO

    068 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 46727 September 27, 1939 - PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 46168 September 29, 1939 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MAHINAY

    068 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 46336 September 29, 1939 - REVEREND ULRIC ARCAND v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 46458 September 29, 1939 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. HERMENEGILDO G. ALAGAR

    068 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 46725 September 29, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO AQUINO

    068 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 46023 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS FLORENDO

    068 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 46252 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONOR DE MOLL

    068 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 46298 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU AMBIS

    068 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 46390 September 30, 1939 - CASIMIRO TIANGCO v. PROCESO FRANCISCO

    068 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 46396 September 30, 1939 - ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN v. VISAYAN RAPID TRANSIT CO.

    068 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 46451 September 30, 1939 - PAZ CHUA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    068 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 46484 September 30, 1939 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    068 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 46724 September 30, 1939 - CRESCENCIO REYNES v. ROSALINA BARRERA

    068 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 46728 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO

    068 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46615   September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO AQUINO<br /><br />068 Phil 588

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46615. September 27, 1939.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALBERTO AQUINO, Defendant-Appellee.

    Assistant Solicitor-General Bautista Angelo and Acting Assistant Attorney Roxas for Appellant.

    Fortunato de Leon for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; ORAL DEFAMATION; PRESCRIPTION. — The period of prescription fixed for crimes of oral defamation is six months (art. 90, Revised Penal Code), and this period is computed from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party (art. 91, id.) . In the case at bar, according to the facts undisputed by the parties, the offended party was informed of the oral defamation committed against him for the first time on March 4, 1936. This being so, the prescriptive period of six months was not to expire until about September 4, 1936. When the first complaint was dismissed by the court on January 21, 1937, it may be said that the period of six months did not even commence to run because the filing of the complaint on March 4, 1936, had the effect of interrupting, on that very day, the running of the period of prescription. This is provided for in article 91 of the Revised Penal Code. The period of prescription in question commenced to run only from the above-mentioned date, January 21, 1937, and only 23 days elapsed from said date to February 13th of the same year. It is clear, therefore, that the appealed order is erroneous because it makes the computation from March 4, 1936, to February 13, 1937, the date of the filing of the last information, when such computation should have been made by it from January 21, 1937, to February 13th of said year.


    D E C I S I O N


    DIAZ, J.:


    The question raised by the appeal taken by the fiscal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Bataan, which dismissed the information filed in criminal case No 3903 of said court entitled "The People of the Philippines plaintiff, v. Alberto Aquino, defendant", on the ground a prescription of the crime imputed to the accused therein is whether or not, under the circumstances of the case, the crime in question has in reality prescribed.

    The case involved a crime of serious oral defamation committed, according to the information, on September 8, 1935, in the municipality of Abucay of the Province of Bataan, against Marcial Kasilag, who was then Assistant Director of Public Works and Commissioner for Mindanao and Sulu. It was expressly alleged in said information which, by the way, is a repetition of the complaint filed by the offended party on March 4, 1936, that the act complained of came to the latter’s knowledge only on the last date above-mentioned. By reason of the involuntary absences of the complainant who had to go to Mindanao due to the exigencies of the office which he was then holding, the trial of the case had to be suspended and the provisional dismissal thereof later ordered, upon motion of the defendant. The court, however, resolved that said dismissal would be "without prejudice" to the fiscal to whom, in an order of January 21, 1937, it expressly reserved the right later to reproduce the same action. The dispositive part of the order in question stated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, the motion for continuance of these two cases is hereby denied, and for lack of evidence for the prosecution, the same are dismissed, with costs de oficio, without prejudice to their being brought again by the fiscal."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Twenty-three days after the dismissal of the case, the offended party Marcial Kasilag again filed in the justice of the peace court of Abucay, Province of Bataan, another complaint charging the appellee with the same crime with which he had previously been charged. In said court the appellee asked for the dismissal of the case, alleging, for the first time, the defense of prescription. His motion, however, was denied on March 13, 1937. Inasmuch as he later waived his right to a preliminary investigation, the justice of the place court of Abucay gave due course to the case by forwarding it to the Court of First Instance, and the provincial fiscal, on June 10, 1937, filed an information, which is substantially the same as the complaint filed in the above-stated justice of the peace court, again charging the appellee with said crime of serious oral defamation committed to the dishonor and discredit of Marcial Kasilag.

    At the trial, the appellee as accused set up the following two defenses: (1) That of double jeopardy, and (2) that of prescription, without failing, on the other hand, to make an absolute denial of all the charges filed against him. He later waived his defense of double jeopardy in order to insist solely on his defense of prescription. The Court of First Instance of Bataan, deciding the question, issued the order of dismissal from which the fiscal interposed the appeal now under consideration.

    The period of prescription fixed for crimes of oral defamation is six months (art. 90, Revised Penal Code), and this period is computed from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party (art. 91, id.) . In the case at bar, according to the facts undisputed by the parties, the offended party was informed of the oral defamation committed against him for the first time on March 4, 1936. This being so, the prescriptive period of six months was not to expire until about September 4, 1936. When the first complaint was dismissed by the court on January 21, 1937, it may be said that the period of six months did not even commence to run because the filing of the complaint on March 4, 1936, had the effect of interrupting, on that very day, the running of the period of prescription. This is so because it is ordered by said article 91 of the Revised Renal Code. The period of prescription in question commenced to run only from the above-mentioned date, January 21, 1937, and only twenty-three days elapsed from said date to February 13th of the same year. It is clear, therefore, that the appealed order is erroneous because it makes the computation from March 4, 1936, to February 13, 1937, the date of the filing of the last information, when such computation should have been made by it from January 21, 1937, to February 13th of said year.

    The dismissal of the case on January 21, 1937, is in no way imputable to the complainant, because the paralyzation of the proceeding was not unjustified, this being shown by the very order of the court to the effect that the dismissal was without prejudice to the fiscal. Furthermore, it was the appellee himself who asked for such dismissal, and when the above-mentioned condition that the same would be "without prejudice" was imposed, he acceded to it, without filing, as he in fact did not file, any objection or protest.

    For the foregoing reasons, the appealed order is reversed, and it is ordered that the proceeding take its ordinary course in the court of its origin until it is terminated, with the costs de oficio. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46615   September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO AQUINO<br /><br />068 Phil 588


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED