Yapdiangco v. Buencamino
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns whether the prescriptive period for a criminal offense is extended when the final day for filing an information falls on a Sunday or legal holiday. The petitioner, Rafael Yapdiangco, was accused of slight physical injuries allegedly committed on December 2, 1964. The City Fiscal of Quezon City filed an information on February 1, 1965, which was the sixty-first day after the commission of the offense, if counting the period strictly. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner moved to quash the information, arguing that the sixty-day prescriptive period had lapsed. The City Court denied this motion, reasoning that the sixtieth day fell on a Sunday and, applying the rule that acts due on a Sunday may be filed on the next business day, the prosecution was timely. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which dismissed the petition. This dismissal led to the present appeal. 3. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant argues before the Supreme Court that a Sunday or legal holiday does not interrupt the prescription of an offense, as this is not an exception explicitly provided in Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code. He contends that rules regarding the extension of time for filing pleadings on holidays, such as Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 1, Rule 28 of the Old Rules of Court, are not applicable to the computation of prescriptive periods for criminal offenses, which are matters of substantive law and should be strictly construed in favor of the accused. The core of the petition is that the State lost its right to prosecute due to the lapse of the prescriptive period.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of an information on the next succeeding business day is permissible when the last day of the prescriptive period falls on a Sunday or legal holiday. Whether a Sunday or legal holiday constitutes a legal efficient cause that interrupts the prescription of an offense. Whether the period fixed by law for commencing criminal prosecution may be legally extended by the intervention of a Sunday or legal holiday.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and mandamus, set aside the questioned order of the respondent court, granted the motion to quash, and dismissed the information before the city court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the filing of an information on the next succeeding business day is permissible when the last day of the prescriptive period falls on a Sunday or legal holiday: The Court held that the rules on computing time for filing pleadings, such as Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 1, Rule 28 of the Old Rules of Court, which allow acts to be done on the next succeeding business day if the last day falls on a holiday, do not apply to the prescription of criminal actions. These rules pertain to the computation of time allowed to do a particular act, not to the waiver or loss of the State's right to prosecute. The prescription of a criminal action is automatic and by operation of law. Therefore, if the sixtieth and last day to file an information falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the sixty-day period cannot be extended to the next working day; prescription has automatically set in. The remedy for the prosecution is to file the information on the last working day before the offense prescribes. On the issue of whether a Sunday or legal holiday constitutes a legal efficient cause that interrupts the prescription of an offense: The Court distinguished between statutes of limitations in civil and criminal cases. In criminal cases, statutes of limitations are viewed as acts of grace by the State, declaring that after a certain time, oblivion is cast over the offense. They are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused. The Court emphasized that the prescription of an offense is not interrupted by the mere occurrence of a Sunday or legal holiday, as these are not among the causes for interruption explicitly provided in Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code. The principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius suggests that the specified exception (offender's absence) excludes other causes for interruption. On the issue of whether the period fixed by law for commencing criminal prosecution may be legally extended by the intervention of a Sunday or legal holiday: The Court reiterated that statutes of limitations in criminal cases are not statutes of process to be scantily applied but are checks imposed by the State upon itself to exact vigilant activity and secure the best evidence. They are not merely acts of grace but are limitations on the State's power to prosecute. The Court cited Wharton on Criminal Pleading and Practice, which states that statutes of limitations in criminal suits are essentially different from those in civil suits and should be liberally construed in favor of the defendant. The Court concluded that the prescriptive period, once set, is not extended by the occurrence of a Sunday or legal holiday, as this would amount to an implied exception not provided for by law.
Main Doctrine
The period of prescription for filing a criminal information, when the last day falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, is not extended to the next succeeding business day. Prescription automatically sets in on the last day of the prescriptive period, even if it is a Sunday or holiday.