G.R. No. 119063. January 27, 1997.
JOSE G. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ADELA TEODORA P. SANTOS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose G. Garcia filed a complaint for bigamy against his wife, private respondent Adela Teodora P. Santos, in 1991. The information alleged that Santos contracted a second marriage with Garcia in 1957 while her first marriage to Reynaldo Quiroca was still subsisting, and that this second marriage was discovered in 1989. Santos moved to quash the information on the ground of prescription. She contended that Garcia had actually discovered the bigamous marriage in 1974, as evidenced by his own testimony in a prior civil case and a complaint he filed with the Civil Service Commission. Bigamy is punishable by prision mayor, an afflictive penalty prescribing in fifteen years under the Revised Penal Code.
The trial court granted the motion to quash, ruling that the prescriptive period commenced from the day of discovery in 1974, not from when Garcia allegedly secured sufficient evidence in 1989. Consequently, the fifteen-year period lapsed in 1989, barring the filing of the information in 1991. Garcia appealed, arguing that Santos’s numerous trips abroad suspended the prescriptive period. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the trial court’s order quashing the information for bigamy on the ground of prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The prescriptive period for a crime commences from its discovery by the offended party, not from the date the offender is positively identified or sufficient evidence is obtained. Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code is clear: the period “shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered.” Garcia’s own judicial admissions in 1974 established the date of discovery. Therefore, the fifteen-year prescriptive period for bigamy began in 1974 and expired in 1989, rendering the 1991 information void.
The Court rejected Garcia’s claim that Santos’s absences from the Philippines suspended the running of prescription. The legal provision that “the term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago” applies only to periods during which the offender is outside the country to evade prosecution. Santos’s travels, as a government employee with approved leaves, were not shown to be for the purpose of avoiding arrest or trial. Consequently, these trips did not interrupt the prescriptive period. The offense having prescribed, the quashal of the information was proper.