Pp vs Coquia Crimproc Rule 110

Llenes vs. Dicdican SCRA - G.R. No. 122274. July 31, 1996. Page 1 of 1 VOL. 8, JUNE 29, 1963 349 People vs. Coquia No. L-16456. June 29, 1963. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- appellant, vs. DOLORES COQUIA, defendant-appellee. Criminal law; Prescription of offenses; Interruption by complaint or information filed in the proper court, not in the fiscal's office.— Conformably to the doctrine, of People vs. Del Rosario, L15140, Dec. 29, 1960, the prescriptive period for the case at bar was never interrupted. In the said case We declared that—under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, light offenses prescribe in two months. Article 91 of the same Code provides that the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are justifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him, the complaint or information referred to in the above prescriptive period, as ruled in the case of People v. Tayco (73 Phil. 509), is that which is filed in the proper court and not the denuncia or accusation lodged by the offended party in the Fiscal's Office. Same; Same: Same; Meaning of term "proper court".—The proper court in the present litigation was the Court of First, Instance of Camarines Sur. The records of this case clearly show that no formal complaint or information as contemplated by the aforementioned Article 91 of the Penal Code was ever filed therein within the reglementary period. As a matter of fact, the said formal complaint or information was filed only after the lapse of more than one year. Considering that under the Code, the prescriptive period for grave oral defamation is six months (Art. 90, Revised Penal Code). the only conclusion deducible is that the same has prescribed. APPEAL from an order of dismissal of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. Surtida, .J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Solicitor General for plaintiff- appellant. M. B. Palma for defendant- appellee.

Upload
quixote28
Category

Documents
view
49
download
15

Embed Size (px):

description

Transcript of Pp vs Coquia Crimproc Rule 110

Llenes vs. DicdicanSCRA - G.R. No. 122274. July 31, 1996.Page PAGE 1 of NUMPAGES 1VOL. 8, JUNE 29, 1963349People vs. CoquiaNo. L-16456. June 29, 1963.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. DOLORES COQUIA, defendant-appellee.Criminal law; Prescription of offenses; Interruption by complaint or information filed in the proper court, not in the fiscal's office.Conformably to the doctrine, of People vs. Del Rosario, L15140, Dec. 29, 1960, the prescriptive period for the case at bar was never interrupted. In the said case We declared thatunder Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, light offenses prescribe in two months. Article 91 of the same Code provides that the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are justifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him, the complaint or information referred to in the above prescriptive period, as ruled in the case of People v. Tayco (73 Phil. 509), is that which is filed in the proper court and not the denuncia or accusation lodged by the offended party in the Fiscal's Office.Same; Same: Same; Meaning of term "proper court".The proper court in the present litigation was the Court of First, Instance of Camarines Sur. The records of this case clearly show that no formal complaint or information as contemplated by the aforementioned Article 91 of the Penal Code was ever filed therein within the reglementary period. As a matter of fact, the said formal complaint or information was filed only after the lapse of more than one year. Considering that under the Code, the prescriptive period for grave oral defamation is six months (Art. 90, Revised Penal Code). the only conclusion deducible is that the same has prescribed.APPEAL from an order of dismissal of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. Surtida, .J.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellant. M. B. Palma for defendant-appellee.