GR 48707 09; (December, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48707-48709, December 5, 1941
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICTOR TAYCO, defendant-appellee
FACTS
The City Fiscal of Manila filed three informations against Victor Tayco for the crime of unjust vexation, alleged to have been committed against three different offended parties on various dates in May 1941. The offended parties reported the offenses to the City Fiscal on May 24, 1941. However, the corresponding informations were not filed in the Municipal Court until July 10, 1941, which was more than two months after the commission and discovery of the offenses. The defendant moved to quash the informations in the Municipal Court on the ground of prescription, which was denied. Upon appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the three cases, agreeing that the offense had prescribed. The City Fiscal appealed this dismissal order to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the filing of a complaint or accusation by the offended party with the City Fiscal’s office interrupts the running of the prescriptive period for a light offense under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the offense of unjust vexation, being a light offense punishable under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code, prescribes in two months pursuant to Article 90. Under Article 91, the period of prescription commences to run from the day the crime is discovered and is interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in the proper court. The act of the offended party in reporting the offense to the City Fiscal’s office is not the “filing of the complaint or information” contemplated by Article 91. The Court rejected the City Fiscal’s contention that his office’s power to investigate under the Revised Administrative Code is akin to a preliminary investigation by a justice of the peace and that a report to his office interrupts prescription. The Court clarified that the complaint or information referred to in Article 91 is the one filed in court, as only court proceedings can terminate in the acquittal or conviction of the accused. Since the informations were filed in court only after the two-month prescriptive period had lapsed, the offense had already prescribed.