PAULA MANDURIAO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. ROQUE HABANA, JUANITO DAYSON AND GLORIA SERRANO, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

This case is about prescription of the crime of lesiones leves.

On February 24, 1962
the acting chief of police of Bacon, Sorsogon filed
in the justice of the peace court a complaint im­puting to Paula Manduriao grave slander with slight physical injuries.  He alleged that Paula uttered against Gloria
Serrano on February 21, 1962
the following defamatory words:

“You are a prostitute. 
You are the worst woman in town. 
Your family is the dirtiest family in town.  I did not allow my son Raul to marry you
because you were the one who courted him.”

It
was further alleged in the complaint that after uttering those defamatory
words, Paula boxed Gloria on the face and forehead, thus inflicting on her
injuries that would heal in eight days (Criminal Case No. 812).

Paula
waived the preliminary investigation. 
The case was elevated to the Court of First Instance (Criminal Case No.
2952).

Because
the fiscal thought that the complaint should be signed by the offended party
(See art. 360, last paragraph, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Padilla, 105
Phil. 45) and that there is no offense of grave slander with lesiones leves, he
filed a motion to dismiss the charge of grave slander without prejudice to
filing the proper complaint.  He also
moved for the return of the record to the justice of the peace court for the
prosecution of the offense of lesiones leves.  The
Court of First Instance granted that motion in its order of July 20, 1962.

On
September 12,
1962, or after the record was returned to the
inferior court, the chief of police filed an amended complaint in Criminal Case
No. 812 for lesiones leves
only.  Paula filed a motion to quash
which was denied by the court in its order of October 24, 1962.

On
February 23, 1963, or after her motion for reconsideration was denied, Paula
filed in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon a
petition for prohibition to restrain the justice of the peace court from trying
the case for slight physical injuries against her.  She contended that the offense had prescribed
and that the justice of the peace court erred in not dismissing the case.  (Civil Case No. 1815).

Respondents justice of the
peace and Gloria Serrano, the offended party, answered the petition.  The parties entered into a
stipulation of facts.  The lower court in
its decision dated March 16, 1975
dismissed the petition.  It ruled that
the offense had not yet prescribed because the amended complaint retroacted to
the filing of the original complaint.

Paula Manduriao appealed to the Court
of Appeals.  That Court in its resolution
of August 31, 1967 elevated
the appeal to this Court because it involves only a question of law.  (CA-G. R. No.
36244-R).

Appellant Manduriao contends that the
lower court erred in holding that the amended complaint is valid and that the
offense of lesiones leves
had not yet prescribed.  She re­lies on
the provision in article 90 of the Revised Penal Code that light offenses
prescribe in two months.

She
argues that the complaint in Criminal Case No. 812 could not have been amended
because after that case was docketed in the Court of First Instance as Criminal
Case No. 2952, it was dismissed and so it became “nonexistent”.

That
is a captious or misleading argument because the trial court unmistakably
stated in its order that it was dismissing the complaint for grave slander
without prejudice and, at the same time, it was remanding the case for
slight physical injuries to the justice of the peace court for trial on the
merits.  Contrary to appellant’s
contention, the slight physical injuries case was not terminated.

However,
because the two crimes were originally charged in one complaint, the chief of
police had no choice but to amend that complaint by eliminating the charge for
grave slander so that Paula Manduriao would be tried
only for slight physical injuries on the basis of an indictment charging solely
that crime.  In amending the complaint,
the chief of police merely implemented the order of dismissal issued by the
Court of First Instance.

The contention that the offense of lesiones
leves had in the meantime prescribed is
palpably unmeritorious.  Article 91 of
the Revised Penal Code provides that the period of prescription “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
sixty-day prescriptive period for light offenses was interrupted in this case
when the chief of police filed the original complaint for grave slander with
slight physical injuries in the justice of the peace court on February 24, 1962.  Only three days of that period had elapsed
when it was interrupted by the filing of that complaint.  That interruption has continued up to this
time.

The
trial court did not err in holding that the amended complaint retroacted to the
time of the filing of the original complaint (Arcaya
vs. Teleron, L-37446, May 31, 1974, 57 SCRA 363, 366,
a case quite similar to the instant case).

Finding
no error in the lower court’s order dismissing the petition the same is
affirmed.  The municipal court of Bacon
is directed to try Criminal Case No. 812. 
Costs against the petitioner-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., and Santos, JJ., concur.