G.R. No. L-23986 December 26, 1967
ERNESTO DEL ROSARIO, CELSO CABRERA, MATIAS L. MARBELLA, PEDRO AMAGUIN, and SANTIAGO PANGAN, petitioners, vs. THE HON. JACINTO CALLANTA, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, Laoag, Ilocos Norte, and THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, respondents.
FACTS
On September 1, 1962, Glicerio N. Parado filed a complaint for libel before the Justice of the Peace Court of Dingras, Ilocos Norte, against the petitioners (editors of the Manila Chronicle). The libel was based on a news item published in the August 29, 1962 issue of the Manila Chronicle, which reported that Parado was among those picked up for questioning and was suspected of heading a robbery group. Warrants were issued, and the accused posted bail. On March 10, 1962, the Provincial Fiscal filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte (Crim. Case No. 4410). The original information alleged the libel was written, printed, and published in Manila but did not allege the residence of the offended party or the accused. After several postponements, the accused filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 1964, alleging lack of jurisdiction (as the information stated publication was in Manila) and prescription (claiming the two-year prescriptive period from August 29, 1962, had expired). The Provincial Fiscal opposed, and on October 26, 1964, filed an amended information alleging the offended party was a resident of Dingras, Ilocos Norte. The court denied the motion to dismiss. The accused failed to secure reconsideration and instituted this certiorari proceeding.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte acquired jurisdiction over the libel case and whether the action had prescribed.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that the complaint filed in the Justice of the Peace Court, together with the attached affidavit of the complainant (which stated he was a resident of Dingras, Ilocos Norte, and that the news item was read there on August 29, 1962), sufficiently alleged facts showing publication in Ilocos Norte and conferred authority on the court to conduct a preliminary investigation. The Court ruled that in considering a motion to dismiss, the judge is not precluded from considering facts admitted by the fiscal or appearing in the records, even if not described in the complaint itself, citing People v. Navarro. The amended information merely supplied the omission. The filing of the complaint in the municipal court interrupted the prescriptive period. The orders of the lower court were sustained.