G.R. No. 34334, November 28, 1930
PATRICIO SANTOS, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE “PHILIPPINE TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS,” respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Patricio Santos filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to secure the release of his daughter, Virginia Santos, a minor, who was committed to the Philippine Training School for Girls by the municipal court of Manila. Virginia was accused of violating a city ordinance. The petitioner contended that the offense had already prescribed when the complaint was filed, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction. The Court of First Instance granted the writ, ordering Virginia’s release and the cancellation of her bond. The Superintendent of the Training School appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the defense of prescription of the offense is a proper ground for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order and denied the writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that while the evidence established prescription of the offense, the defense of prescription must be raised during the trial in the court where the case is prosecuted and cannot be invoked for the first time in a habeas corpus proceeding. Prescription does not deprive the court of jurisdiction; it merely causes the State to lose the right to prosecute. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties remains, and the proper remedy is for the court to dismiss the case on the merits upon a timely plea of prescription. The municipal court had jurisdiction to commit the minor under Act No. 3203, which applies to any court where a minor under eighteen is accused of an offense not punishable by life imprisonment or death. Therefore, habeas corpus is not available to challenge a judgment based on a defense that was waived by not asserting it during trial.