View full case

PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE BAUTISTA

FACTS:

The undisputed facts of this case are as follows: a dispute arose on June 12, 1999, between the respondent and his co-accused Leonida Bautista, and private complainant Felipe Goyena, Jr. Private complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Barangay of Malate, Manila, but no settlement was reached. The barangay chairman then issued a Certification to file action on August 11, 1999. On August 16, 1999, private complainant filed a Complaint for slight physical injuries against the respondent and his co-accused with the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP). After conducting a preliminary investigation, Prosecutor Jessica Junsay-Ong issued a Joint Resolution on November 8, 1999, recommending the filing of an Information against the respondent. The City Prosecutor approved the recommendation, but the date of such approval cannot be found in the records. The Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 28 on June 20, 2000. The respondent sought the dismissal of the case against him, claiming that the 60-day period of prescription had already elapsed by the time the Information was filed. The MeTC denied the motion to dismiss, but the RTC concurred with the MeTC's ruling. The respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). On June 22, 2005, the CA reversed and set aside the orders of the lower courts and dismissed the criminal case for slight physical injuries on the ground that it had already prescribed. The People of the Philippines filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking the reversal of the CA's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the offense charged had already prescribed at the time the Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).

  2. Whether or not the prescriptive period began to run anew after the investigating prosecutor's recommendation to file the criminal information against respondent was approved by the City Prosecutor.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the offense charged had already prescribed at the time the Information was filed with the MeTC. The Court of Appeals (CA) held that the proceedings at the City Prosecutor's Office (CPO) were "unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to the accused" for a time much longer than the prescriptive period of two months. Consequently, the offense had already prescribed when filed with the court on June 20, 2000. Therefore, the CA dismissed the criminal case.

  2. No, the prescriptive period did not begin to run anew after the investigating prosecutor's recommendation was approved by the City Prosecutor. The Court held that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's office suspended the running of the prescriptive period. The proceedings against the respondent were not terminated upon the City Prosecutor's approval of the recommendation. The prescriptive period remained tolled from the time the complaint was filed with the Office of the Prosecutor until the respondent was either convicted or acquitted by the court. Therefore, the prescriptive period was not restarted after the approval of the recommendation, and the offense had already prescribed when the Information was filed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The filing of a complaint with the fiscal's office suspends the running of the prescriptive period. (Article 91, Revised Penal Code)

  • The prescriptive period remains tolled from the time the complaint is filed with the Office of the Prosecutor until the respondent is either convicted or acquitted by the proper court.

  • The accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial cannot be invoked when the delay occurs in the filing of the information after the City Prosecutor has approved the recommendation of the investigating prosecutor.