People v. Castro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Apolonio Bustos, head teacher, was invited to hear mass by Pascual Castro, also a teacher. An ensuing discussion led to Castro giving Bustos a fist blow, causing injuries requiring five days of medical attendance. Procedural History: A complaint for slight physical injuries was filed on April 14, 1952, in the Justice of the Peace Court of Macabebe, Pampanga. The accused was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen days of arresto menor and costs. The accused appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), pleaded not guilty, and subsequently moved to dismiss the information on the ground of prescription. The CFI ignored the plea and reiterated the penalty imposed by the inferior court. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellant contends that the lower court erred in not dismissing the information on the ground that the offense had already prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in not dismissing the information on the ground that the offense charged had already prescribed. Whether the failure of the accused to move to quash before pleading constitutes a waiver to raise the question of prescription at a later stage of the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the case. The offense had prescribed, and the accused's failure to raise the defense before pleading did not constitute a waiver.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription and waiver: The Court held that the offense of slight physical injuries, a light offense, prescribes in two months under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. The incident occurred on January 19, 1952, and the complaint was filed on April 14, 1952, which is more than two months later. Therefore, the crime had prescribed. The Court reiterated the ruling in People vs. Moran that the defense of prescription of crime is a substantive right that extinguishes criminal liability and cannot be deemed waived by the accused's failure to raise it before pleading, even if Rule 113, Section 10 of the Rules of Court provides for such waiver. The Court reasoned that procedural rules promulgated by the Supreme Court cannot override substantive provisions of law, such as Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that prescription of crime totally extinguishes criminal liability. The Court emphasized that the State loses its right to prosecute and punish the offense once it has prescribed, and the defendant may, at any stage of the proceeding, demand dismissal. The Court distinguished the Santos vs. Supt. of the Phil. Training School for Girls case, noting it involved a habeas corpus petition where prescription is generally not entertained, unlike an ordinary criminal prosecution. The attempt to interrupt the prescription period by a prior complaint for attempted homicide was not given serious consideration due to insufficient data in the record regarding its filing date. On the procedural aspect of waiver: The Court acknowledged the general rule that failure to move to quash before pleading constitutes a waiver of objections, including prescription, under Rule 113, Section 10 of the Rules of Court. However, it clarified that this rule is not of absolute application in criminal cases, especially when it conflicts with substantive provisions of law. The Court reasoned that the constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice, and procedure does not extend to substantive rights. Therefore, a rule that would deem the defense of prescription waived would conflict with Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for the extinguishment of criminal liability by prescription. The Court concluded that the Moran doctrine, which allows the defense of prescription to be raised at any stage, remains valid even after the adoption of the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
The defense of prescription of crime, being a substantive right that extinguishes criminal liability, cannot be deemed waived by the accused's failure to raise it before pleading, even if the Rules of Court provide otherwise, as procedural rules cannot override substantive law.