Llenes v. Dicdican

G.R. No. 122274 (July 31, 1996)

SC affirmed filing with Ombudsman halts defamation prescription, upholding lower court rulings.

Facts:

On October 13, 1993, Vivian G. Ginete, the officer-in-charge of the Physical Education and School Sports Division of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) in Cebu City, filed a complaint for grave oral defamation against Susan V. Llenes, an Education Supervisor II at the same office. The alleged defamation occurred on September 23, 1993. Following the complaint, Llenes was required to submit a counter-affidavit but failed to do so.

On March 15, 1994, the Graft Investigation Officer recommended that the case be forwarded to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu City for the filing of an information against Llenes. This recommendation was approved, and on March 28, 1994, the City Prosecutor filed an information for grave oral defamation against Llenes, which was assigned to the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Cebu City.

On May 30, 1994, Llenes filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the criminal liability had already prescribed. She contended that under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the offense of grave oral defamation prescribes in six months, and since the information was filed 186 days after the alleged offense, it had already prescribed. Llenes cited the case of Zaldivia vs. Reyes, which held that the filing of an information does not interrupt the prescriptive period for crimes.

In opposition, Ginete argued that the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman was equivalent to filing with the prosecutor's office, which interrupts the prescriptive period as per Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The MTC denied Llenes' motion to quash on July 18, 1994, agreeing with Ginete's position. Llenes' subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Llenes then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, which affirmed the MTC's orders. The RTC ruled that the MTC's order was interlocutory and that Llenes should proceed to trial, retaining the right to raise her defense later. Llenes' motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

The primary legal issue was whether the filing of a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for grave oral defamation interrupts the period of prescription for the offense under the Revised Penal Code.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (Llenes): Llenes argued that the information filed against her had already prescribed since it was filed beyond the six-month period stipulated in Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. She maintained that the filing of a complaint with the Ombudsman does not interrupt the prescriptive period, relying on the precedent set in Zaldivia vs. Reyes.

  • Respondent (Ginete): Ginete contended that the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman was equivalent to filing with the prosecutor's office, which under Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, interrupts the prescriptive period. She argued that the Ombudsman has the authority to investigate and prosecute complaints against public officials, thus the filing of her complaint should toll the running of the prescriptive period.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court dismissed Llenes' petition, ruling that the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman indeed interrupted the prescriptive period for grave oral defamation. The Court clarified that the prescriptive period for the offense began on the date of the alleged defamation, September 23, 1993, and was interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman on October 13, 1993.

The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman has the constitutional and statutory authority to investigate complaints against public officials, and the filing of such complaints should be treated similarly to filing with the prosecutor's office. The Court overruled previous conflicting decisions and established that the filing of a complaint with the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation purposes interrupts the prescriptive period for criminal liability.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. The filing of a complaint with the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation purposes interrupts the prescriptive period for criminal offenses, including grave oral defamation.
  2. The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against public officials is broad and encompasses any illegal act or omission, regardless of its connection to official duties.
  3. The Court clarified the interpretation of Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code regarding the interruption of the prescriptive period, establishing a clear precedent for future cases.