PEOPLE Vs CLEMENTE BAUTISTA (RULE110 - Sec 1)

PEOPLE vs CLEMENTE BAUTISTA  RTC – denied subsequent petition by the herein
GR NO. 168641 respondent. It concurred MeTC ruling.

April 27, 2007
 CA – respondent filed with this court a petition for
certiorari which rendered a decision holding that the
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed 60-day prescriptive period was interrupted when the
by the People of the Philippines assailing the Decision of offended party filed a Complaint with the OCP of
the Court of Appeals (CA) dated June 22, 2005 in CA-
G.R. SP No. 72784, reversing the Order of the Regional
Manila on August 16, 1999. Nevertheless, the CA
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Manila and dismissing the concluded that the offense had prescribed by the time
criminal case for slight physical injuries against the Information was filed with the MeTC The
respondent on the ground that the offense charged had decision reads as follow:
already prescribed.
In the case on hand, although the approval of the
Joint Resolution of ACP Junsay-Ong bears no date, it
effectively terminated the proceedings at the
OCP. Hence, even if the 10-day period for the CP or
ACP Sulla, his designated alter ego, to act on the
FACTS: resolution is extended up to the utmost limit, it
ought not have been taken as late as the last day of the
 June 12, 1999 – a dispute arose between respondent year 1999. Yet, the information was filed with
and his co-accused Leonida Bautista, on one hand, the MeTC only on June 20, 2000, or already nearly six
and private complainant Felipe Goyena, Jr., on the (6) months into the next year. To use once again the
other. language of Article 91 of the RPC, the proceedings
at the CPO was unjustifiably stopped for any reason
 Aug 11, 1999 – private complainant filed a not imputable to him (the accused) for a time very
Complaint with the Office of much more than the prescriptive period of only two
the Barangay of Malate, Manila, but no settlement (2) months. The offense charged had, therefore, already
was reached. The barangay chairman then issued a prescribed when filed with the court on June 20, 2000.
Certification to file action.
 Aug 16, 1999 – private complainant filed with the Hence, this petition.
Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) a Complaint for
slight physical injuries against herein respondent and ISSUE:
his co-accused. W/N the prescriptive period began to run anew
after the investigating prosecutor’s recommendation to
 Nov 8, 1999 – after conducting the preliminary file the proper criminal information against respondent
investigation, Prosecutor Jessica Junsay-Ong issued a was approved by the City Prosecutor.
Joint Resolution recommending the filing of an
Information against herein respondent which was
subsequently approved by the City Prosecutor, HELD:
represented by First Assistant City
Prosecutor Eufrocino A. Sulla, but the date of such NO. The SC held that it is a well-settled rule that
approval cannot be found in the records. the filing of the complaint with the fiscals office
suspends the running of the prescriptive period.
 June 20, 2000 – the Information was filed with the The proceedings against respondent were not
MeTC of Manila. terminated upon the City Prosecutor's approval of the
investigating prosecutor's recommendation that
 RESPONDENT – sought the dismissal of the case information be filed with the court. The prescriptive
against him on the ground that by the time the period remains tolled from the time the complaint was
Information was filed, the 60-day period of filed with the Office of the Prosecutor until such time
prescription from the date of the commission of that respondent is either convicted or acquitted by the
the crime, that is, on June 12, 1999 had already proper court.
elapsed. The Office of the Prosecutor miserably incurred
some delay in filing the information but such mistake or
 MeTC – ruled that the offense had not yet prescribed. negligence should not unduly prejudice the interests of
the State and the offended party. As held in People
v. Olarte, it is unjust to deprive the injured party of the
right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are
not under his control. All that the victim of the offense
may do on his part to initiate the prosecution is to file
the requisite complaint.

The constitutional right of the accused to a
speedy trial cannot be invoked by the petitioner in the
present petition considering that the delay occurred not
in the conduct of preliminary investigation or trial in
court but in the filing of the Information after the City
Prosecutor had approved the recommendation of the
investigating prosecutor to file the information.

PEOPLE Vs CLEMENTE BAUTISTA (RULE110 - Sec 1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE Vs CLEMENTE BAUTISTA (RULE110 - Sec 1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE Vs CLEMENTE BAUTISTA (RULE110 - Sec 1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE vs CLEMENTE BAUTISTA  RTC – denied subsequent petition by the herein

GR NO. 168641 respondent. It concurred MeTC ruling.

You might also like