PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CLEMENTE BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.

People versus Bautista

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Clemente Bautista, a criminal case for slight physical injuries that never reached trial on the merits because the accused claimed the offense had already prescribed. The case matters because it draws a bright line on when the prescriptive period for a criminal offense is interrupted and, more importantly, when it begins to run again. The Court of Appeals held that the period resumed once the City Prosecutor approved the investigating prosecutor's recommendation to file an information, so that the delay in actually filing the information in court allowed prescription to set in. The Supreme Court disagreed, and in doing so clarified that the prescriptive period stays tolled from the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor until the accused is either convicted or acquitted.

Procedural History

The private complainant filed a complaint for slight physical injuries with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. After preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor recommended the filing of an information, and that recommendation was approved by the City Prosecutor. The information was eventually filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28. Bautista moved to dismiss on the ground that the offense had prescribed. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled that the offense had not yet prescribed.

Bautista elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Manila through a petition for certiorari. The Regional Trial Court denied the petition and agreed with the Metropolitan Trial Court. Bautista then went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that although the prescriptive period was interrupted when the complaint was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor, the period began to run again once the City Prosecutor approved the resolution, and since the information was filed only much later, the offense had prescribed. The Court of Appeals ordered the criminal case dismissed.

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court gave due course to the petition even though the People had not first filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, holding that a motion for reconsideration is not a condition sine qua non, that is, not an indispensable prerequisite, for filing a petition for review under Rule 45.

Facts

On June 12, 1999, a dispute arose between Clemente Bautista and his co-accused Leonida Bautista, on one hand, and the private complainant Felipe Goyena, Junior, on the other. The private complainant filed a complaint with 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, the private complainant filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor a complaint for slight physical injuries against Bautista and his co-accused. After preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor issued a joint resolution dated November 8, 1999 recommending the filing of an information against Bautista. The recommendation was approved by the City Prosecutor, but the date of that approval cannot be found in the records.

The information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila only on June 20, 2000. By then, Bautista argued, the sixty-day prescriptive period for slight physical injuries, counted from the commission of the crime on June 12, 1999, had already elapsed. The courts below split on the question, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the prescriptive period for the offense of slight physical injuries began to run anew after the investigating prosecutor's recommendation to file an information was approved by the City Prosecutor.
• Whether or not the offense had already prescribed by the time the information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court on June 20, 2000.

Applicable Provisions

Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code governs the computation of the prescription of offenses:

Article 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 Philippine Archipelago.

This provision is the fulcrum of the case, because the entire dispute turns on whether the proceedings terminated or were unjustifiably stopped when the City Prosecutor approved the recommendation to file an information.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in the negative. The prescriptive period did not begin to run anew upon the City Prosecutor's approval of the investigating prosecutor's recommendation. The Court held that the proceedings against the respondent were not terminated by that approval. The prescriptive period remains tolled from the time the complaint was filed with the Office of the Prosecutor until such time that the respondent is either convicted or acquitted by the proper court. The Court applied the settled rule that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's office suspends the running of the prescriptive period.

On the second issue, the Court likewise ruled in the negative. The offense had not prescribed. The Court acknowledged that the Office of the Prosecutor incurred delay in filing the information, but held that such mistake or negligence should not unduly prejudice the interests of the State and the offended party. Citing People versus Olarte, the Court stressed that it is unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under his control, since all that the victim may do to initiate the prosecution is to file the requisite complaint.

The Court also addressed the accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial, holding that it could not be invoked here because the delay occurred not in the conduct of the preliminary investigation or trial in court, but in the filing of the information after the City Prosecutor had approved the recommendation. The Court refused to be an unwitting tool in depriving the offended party of the right to vindicate a wrong by the mere expediency of a prosecutor not filing the proper information in due time. It warned that it will not tolerate prosecutors' apparent lack of a sense of urgency in fulfilling their mandate, and suggested that the more appropriate course is the filing of an administrative disciplinary action against the erring public officials.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the prescriptive period for a criminal offense is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. Second, the filing of the complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor suspends the running of the prescriptive period, and that period remains tolled until the accused is either convicted or acquitted by the proper court. Third, the approval by the City Prosecutor of the investigating prosecutor's recommendation to file an information does not terminate the proceedings and does not cause the prescriptive period to run anew. Fourth, delay by the prosecution in filing the information, absent any showing that it was unjustifiably stopped for a reason imputable to the accused, does not work to the prejudice of the State and the offended party. Fifth, the accused's right to a speedy trial is not violated where the delay occurs in the filing of the information after the prosecutor's approval, rather than in the preliminary investigation or trial.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, directing that a copy of the decision be furnished to the Secretary of the Department of Justice for appropriate action against the erring officials.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is this: the prescriptive period remains tolled from the filing of the complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor until the accused is convicted or acquitted, and the prosecutor's approval of a recommendation to file an information does not restart the clock. Examiners like to use this case to test the computation of prescription under Article 91 and to distinguish prosecutorial delay from a violation of the right to speedy trial.