G.R. No. L-7557, December 7, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE S. SERAPIO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The defendant, Jose S. Serapio, was charged with the crime of libel under Act No. 277 (the Libel Law) for allegedly writing and sending anonymous communications to the Executive Secretary in December 1907. The communications contained serious accusations against Bonifacio Morales, then a justice of the peace, including allegations of murder, robbery, criminal reputation, and immoral conduct. Upon arraignment, the defendant filed a demurrer, arguing that: (1) the facts alleged did not constitute a crime, and (2) if a crime existed, it had already prescribed. The trial court (Judge Alberto Barretto) sustained the second ground, ruling that the crime had prescribed under Article 131 of the Spanish Penal Code, which provided a prescriptive period for the crimes of calumny and insults. The court ordered the prosecuting attorney to file a new complaint. The government appealed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the prescriptive period for the crimes of calumny and insults under Article 131 of the Spanish Penal Code applies to the crime of libel as defined and punished under Act No. 277 (a special law enacted by the Philippine Commission).

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Court held that the general provisions of the Spanish Penal Code, including those on prescription of crimes, do not automatically apply to special penal laws enacted by the Philippine Commission (or Legislature) unless expressly made applicable by law. Act No. 277 , which defines and punishes libel, is a special law that does not contain any provision fixing a prescriptive period for the criminal action arising from it. Furthermore, there is no general or special law that makes Article 131 of the Penal Code applicable to libel under Act No. 277 .

The Court established the following principles:
1. Under Article 7 of the Penal Code, its general provisions do not apply to penal laws enacted by the U.S. Philippine Commission unless expressly made applicable.
2. No law expressly makes the provisions of the Penal Code on prescription applicable to Act No. 277 (except for provisions on subsidiary imprisonment under Act No. 1732 ).
3. Consequently, the prescriptive period in Article 131 of the Penal Code for calumny and insults does not apply to the crime of libel under Act No. 277 .
4. If a law defining a crime does not fix a period of prescription, the action for that crime is not barred by mere lapse of time.
5. Since Act No. 277 did not fix a prescriptive period for libel, the action against Serapio had not prescribed.

Therefore, the demurrer based on prescription should not have been sustained. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to require the defendant to plead to the complaint.