GR 122274; (July, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122274 July 31, 1996
SUSAN V. LLENES, petitioner, vs. HON. ISAIAS P. DICDICAN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 11, HON. AMADO B. BAJARIAS, SR., Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 7, and VIVIAN G. GINETE, respondents.
FACTS
On October 13, 1993, private respondent Vivian G. Ginete filed a complaint for grave oral defamation, allegedly committed on September 23, 1993, against petitioner Susan V. Llenes with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas. After preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman indorsed the case to the City Prosecutor, who filed an information with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) on March 28, 1994. Petitioner moved to quash the information, arguing the crime had prescribed. She contended that grave oral defamation prescribes in six months (180 days) under the Revised Penal Code, and the filing on March 28, 1994, occurred 186 days after the alleged act, beyond the prescriptive period. She cited Zaldivia v. Reyes, which held that filing with the fiscal’s office does not interrupt prescription for offenses covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
ISSUE
Whether the filing of a complaint for grave oral defamation with the Office of the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation interrupts the running of the prescriptive period for the offense.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman effectively interrupted the prescriptive period. The Court applied the doctrine established in People v. Olarte and subsequent cases, which holds that the filing of a complaint for preliminary investigation with the prosecuting officer interrupts prescription, as the offender is thereby placed under legal process. This rationale extends to complaints filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, which, under Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), has the authority to conduct preliminary investigations of offenses committed by public officers. The petitioner, as an Education Supervisor II, is a public officer. Therefore, the complaint filed with the Ombudsman-Visayas on October 13, 1993—only twenty days after the alleged crime—tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Consequently, the filing of the information in court on March 28, 1994, was well within the six-month prescriptive period. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.