Llenes v. Dicdican
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a complaint for grave oral defamation filed by Vivian G. Ginete against Susan V. Llenes. The alleged offense occurred on September 23, 1993. Llenes is accused of uttering defamatory words against Ginete, who was then the officer-in-charge of the Physical Education and School Sports Division of the DECS Regional Office in Cebu City, while Llenes was an Education Supervisor II in the same office. 2. Procedural History: Ginete filed a complaint for grave oral defamation with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas on October 13, 1993. Llenes failed to file a counter-affidavit. The Ombudsman recommended indorsement to the City Prosecutor of Cebu City, who subsequently filed an information with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) on March 28, 1994. Llenes filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the offense had prescribed, as the filing was 186 days after the alleged commission. The MTC denied this motion. Llenes' subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. She then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTC's orders. Her motion for reconsideration of the RTC's decision was also denied, leading to the present petition. 3. The Petition: This special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court raises the key issue of whether the filing of a complaint against a government official with the Office of the Ombudsman interrupts the period of prescription for the offense. Llenes contends that the filing with the Ombudsman does not toll the prescriptive period, citing precedent that only filing with the proper court does. The Supreme Court is asked to determine the effect of filing a complaint with the Ombudsman on the prescription of criminal liability for offenses, particularly in light of established jurisprudence and procedural rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman interrupts the period of prescription of the offense charged. Whether the offense of grave oral defamation had prescribed when the information was filed with the Municipal Trial Court.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for want of merit. The filing of the complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman interrupts the period of prescription for offenses punishable under the Revised Penal Code. The information was filed within the prescriptive period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the filing of a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman interrupts the period of prescription of the offense charged: The Supreme Court held that the filing of a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against a public officer for an offense punishable under the Revised Penal Code interrupts the period of prescription. This is because the Ombudsman, as protector of the people, is vested with broad constitutional and statutory powers to investigate and prosecute public officers for illegal acts or omissions. The Court reasoned that the rationale of previous decisions, such as People vs. Olarte and Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, which held that the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor's office or with the municipal court for preliminary investigation purposes interrupts prescription, applies with equal force to complaints filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman's authority to investigate any illegal act or omission of a public officer is broad and does not require the act to be related to official duties. Therefore, the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman-Visayas on 13 October 1993 tolled the running of the prescriptive period for grave oral defamation. On the issue of whether the offense of grave oral defamation had prescribed when the information was filed with the Municipal Trial Court: The Court found that the offense of grave oral defamation prescribes in six months under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. The alleged commission of the offense was on 23 September 1993. The complaint was filed with the Ombudsman on 13 October 1993, which was within twenty days of the alleged commission. The information was filed with the MTC on 28 March 1994. Given that the filing with the Ombudsman interrupted the prescriptive period, the period commenced to run again only upon the termination of the proceedings before the Ombudsman without conviction or acquittal, or if they were unjustifiably stopped. However, the Court's primary ruling was that the filing with the Ombudsman itself interrupted the period. Therefore, the filing of the information on 28 March 1994 was well within the six-month prescriptive period, as the period was tolled by the initial filing with the Ombudsman.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against a public officer for an offense punishable under the Revised Penal Code interrupts the period of prescription of such offense, equivalent to the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor's office.