Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    People of The Philippines vs. Ascencion Olarte

    Uploaded by

    Paula Gaspar
    This case involves a libel charge filed by Visitacion Meris against Asuncion Olarte for sending her libelous letters starting in 1954. [1] Meris first filed the libel case with a Justice of Peace Court in 1956, then later filed with the Court of First Instance. [2] Olarte argued the case had prescribed, but the Solicitor General claimed the earlier filing interrupted prescription. [3] The Court held that while jurisdiction over libel cases lies with the Court of First Instance, Justice of Peace Courts are authorized to conduct preliminary investigations, and such a filing interrupts the prescription period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People of The Philippines vs. Ascencion Olarte

    Uploaded by

    Paula Gaspar
    1K views1 page
    This case involves a libel charge filed by Visitacion Meris against Asuncion Olarte for sending her libelous letters starting in 1954. [1] Meris first filed the libel case with a Justice of Peace Court in 1956, then later filed with the Court of First Instance. [2] Olarte argued the case had prescribed, but the Solicitor General claimed the earlier filing interrupted prescription. [3] The Court held that while jurisdiction over libel cases lies with the Court of First Instance, Justice of Peace Courts are authorized to conduct preliminary investigations, and such a filing interrupts the prescription period.

    Original Description:

    People of the Philippines vs. Ascencion Olarte digest

    Original Title

    People of the Philippines vs. Ascencion Olarte

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a libel charge filed by Visitacion Meris against Asuncion Olarte for sending her libelous letters starting in 1954. [1] Meris first filed the libel case with a Justice of Peace Court in 1956, then later filed with the Court of First Instance. [2] Olarte argued the case had prescribed, but the Solicitor General claimed the earlier filing interrupted prescription. [3] The Court held that while jurisdiction over libel cases lies with the Court of First Instance, Justice of Peace Courts are authorized to conduct preliminary investigations, and such a filing interrupts the prescription period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    People of The Philippines vs. Ascencion Olarte

    Uploaded by

    Paula Gaspar
    This case involves a libel charge filed by Visitacion Meris against Asuncion Olarte for sending her libelous letters starting in 1954. [1] Meris first filed the libel case with a Justice of Peace Court in 1956, then later filed with the Court of First Instance. [2] Olarte argued the case had prescribed, but the Solicitor General claimed the earlier filing interrupted prescription. [3] The Court held that while jurisdiction over libel cases lies with the Court of First Instance, Justice of Peace Courts are authorized to conduct preliminary investigations, and such a filing interrupts the prescription period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People of the Philippines vs.

    Ascencion Olarte
    June 30, 1960

    Facts:
    Asuncion Olarte is charged with libel by Visitacion Meris after sending her several letters
    with libelous and contemptuous accusations. The letters started in February 24, 1954. On
    January 7, 1956, a libel case was filed with the provincial fiscal and on February 26 1956,
    filed the case with the Justice of Peace Court. On July 3, 1956, an information was filed in
    the Court of First Instance. The defendant then moved for the quashal of the info on the
    ground that it prescribed already. The Solicitor General on the other hand claims that the
    filing of the complaint in the Court of Justice of Peace interrupted the prescription period of
    the case. The defendant however claims that according to Article 360 of the Revised Penal
    Code:
    The criminal action and the civil action for damages in cases of written defamation,
    as provided in this chapter, may be filed simultaneously or separately with the court
    of first instance of the province wherein the libel was published, displayed or
    exhibited, regardless of the place where the same was written, printed or composed.

    This provision provides that interruption begins when the case is filed with the CFI. The
    lower court dismissed the complaint.

    Issue:
    Did the libel case prescribed already?

    Held:
    No. Act 277 was the old law on libel. Libel case were then in the jurisdiction of the Court of
    First Instance, regardless of the amount involved. Article 360 however specifically provides
    that the case is in the jurisdiction of the CFI.

    Act 194 on the other hand authorizes justices of the peace to make preliminary
    investigation of any crime alleged to have been committed within his municipality. The
    question is whether Act 277 is an exception to Act 194 in the jurisdiction of Justices of the
    peace. The Court answered this to the negative. 1) Nothing in Act 277 mentioned such
    intent. 2) Amendments by implication are frowned upon 3) Authority of the justices of
    peace to conduct prelim investigation is far from inconsistent with the authority of the CFI.
    Does the filing then of a libel case in the Court of Justice stop the running period of
    prescription? Jurisdiction to hear the case is different from authority to make preliminary
    investigation. The Courts of the Justice of Peace have jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
    investigation on libel cases. When it is instituted in such court, the prescriptive period is
    interrupted.

    Dissenting opinion:
    The law provides an express provision that jurisdiction is with the CFI. Framers of the RPC
    did not want the intervention of JPC. Some judges in the JPC are not lawyers, and such
    might be the intention of giving exclusive jurisdiction to CFI. Commencement of the judicial
    proceeding cannot start at the investigation of the JCP

    You might also like