Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ISSUE: WON the complaint for direct assault requires the conduct of preliminary investigation.
WON the conduct of investigation is within the scope of authority of the first level courts judges.
RULING:
1. Yes. Under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code, when the assault is committed against a person in
authority while engaged in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion of such performance, the
imposable penalty is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. The duration of the penalty is 2
years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years. Thus, the offense charged against complainant requires the conduct of
preliminary investigation as provided under Section 1 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
2. No. The Court emphasized that when the complaint was filed on 3 January 2006, respondent judge no
longer had authority to conduct preliminary investigation by virtue of AM No. 05-8-26-SC. Thus, the Court held
that respondent judge should have referred the complaint to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor instead of
issuing the subpoena directing complainants to appear before the court.
B. PRESCRIPTION
CASE: PEOPLE V. OLARTE, GR No. L-13027, June 30, 1960
FACTS:
Defendant Olarte was charged with libel. Olarte seasonably moved to quash the information upon the
ground of prescription of the offense; and that, after due hearing, the CFI granted said motion and dismissed
the case. Hence, this appeal by complainant Miss Meris.
ISSUE: WON the statute of limitations was suspended by the filing of the complaint of the peace court on
February 22, 1956, as claimed by appellant, or continued to run until July 3, 1956, when the information was
filed with the court of first instance, as contended by the defendant.
RULING: The Court held that the filing of the complaint with the justice of the peace court interrupted the
running of the statute of limitations, as regards the crime of libel with which defendant herein is charged.
CASE: FRANCISCO VS. CA, GR NO. L-45674, May 30, 1983
FACTS:
This is petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA which modified the decision of the lower
court by finding petitioners guilty of the crime of simple slander instead of grave oral defamation as the former
CFI has held. The Sol Gen contends that for the purpose of determining the proper prescriptive period, what
should be considered is the nature of the offense charged in the information which is grave oral defamation,
not the crime committed by the accused, as said crime was found by the court to constitute only simple
slander. Hence, the period of prescription should be six months.
ISSUE: WON the contention of the Sol Gen is tenable.
RULING: The Court held that the true doctrine is, and should be, the one established by the decisions holding
that the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court, even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary
examination or investigation, should, and does, interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility,
even if the court where the complaint or information is filed can not try the case on its merits.
Therefore, the filing of the complaint for intriguing against honor by the offended party, later changed by
the Fiscal to grave oral defamation, even if it were in the Fiscals Office, 39 days after the alleged defamatory
remarks were committed (or discovered) by the accused interrupts the period of prescription.