Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    People vs. Bautista

    Uploaded by

    burning red
    The document discusses a case regarding whether the prescriptive period for filing charges had elapsed. It was argued that the prescriptive period began running again after the prosecutor recommended charges be filed. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office suspends the running of the prescriptive period until conviction or acquittal by the court.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Bautista

    Uploaded by

    burning red
    64 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case regarding whether the prescriptive period for filing charges had elapsed. It was argued that the prescriptive period began running again after the prosecutor recommended charges be filed. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office suspends the running of the prescriptive period until conviction or acquittal by the court.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Procedure

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case regarding whether the prescriptive period for filing charges had elapsed. It was argued that the prescriptive period began running again after the prosecutor recommended charges be filed. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office suspends the running of the prescriptive period until conviction or acquittal by the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    64 views2 pages

    People vs. Bautista

    Uploaded by

    burning red
    The document discusses a case regarding whether the prescriptive period for filing charges had elapsed. It was argued that the prescriptive period began running again after the prosecutor recommended charges be filed. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office suspends the running of the prescriptive period until conviction or acquittal by the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, -versus- CLEMENTE BAUTISTA,

    Respondent. G.R. No. 168641, THIRD DIVISION, April 27, 2007, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
    J.

    It is a well-settled rule that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal’s office suspends the
    running of the prescriptive period.

    Complaint filed with the OCP – August 16, 1999

    Complaint filed MeTC – June 20, 2000

    FACTS:

    A dispute arose between respondent and his co-accused Leonida Bautista, on one hand, and
    private complainant Felipe Goyena, Jr., on the other. 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 dated August 11, 1999.On August 16, 1999,
    private complainant filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor a Complaint for slight physical
    injuries against herein respondent and his co-accused.

    Prosecutor Jessica Junsay-Ong issued a Joint Resolution recommending the filing of an


    Information against herein respondent after conducting the preliminary investigation. The
    Information was, however, filed with the MeTC of Manila, Branch 28 only on June 20, 2000.

    Respondent sought the dismissal of the case against him on the ground that by the time the
    Information was filed, the 60-day period of prescription from the date of the commission of the
    crime, that is, on June 12, 1999 had already elapsed. The MeTC ruled that the offense had not yet
    prescribed.

    Respondent elevated the issue to the RTC but the RTC denied said petition and concurred with
    the opinion of the MeTC.

    On appeal, CA concluded that the offense had prescribed by the time the Information was filed
    with the MeTC.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the prescriptive period began to run anew after the investigating prosecutor’s
    recommendation to file the proper criminal information against respondent was approved by the
    City Prosecutor. (NO)

    RULING:
    Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code provides thus:

    Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. - The period of prescription shall commence to
    run from the day on which the crime is 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 unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
    The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philipppine
    Archipelago.

    The CA and respondent are of the view that upon approval of the investigating
    prosecutor's recommendation for the filing of an information against respondent, the
    period of prescription began to run again.

    The Court does not agree. It is a well-settled rule that the filing of the complaint with the
    fiscal’s office suspends the running of the prescriptive period.

    The proceedings against respondent was not terminated upon the City Prosecutor's approval of
    the investigating prosecutor's recommendation that an information be filed with the court. The
    prescriptive period remains tolled from the time the complaint was filed with the Office of
    the Prosecutor until such time that respondent is either convicted or acquitted by the
    proper court.

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED.  The Decision of the CA is hereby


    REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the Decision of the RTC is hereby REINSTATED.  

    You might also like