Quizon v. Baltazar

BARREDO, J.:

Petiion for certiorari and prohibition to declare null and void the orders of the Municipal Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, issued in Criminal Cases Nos. 4203, People vs. Federico Quizon and 4204, People vs. Profitisa Quizon, dated July 11 and August 17, 1964, respectively, denying petitioners' motion to quash the criminal complaints against them based on the ground of prescription of the offense of serious oral defamation of which they were charged, and to prohibit said court from proceeding further with the said criminal cases, except to dismiss the same. On May 11, 1964, private respondent, Cecilia Sangalang, with the assistance of Assistant Provincial Fiscal Eliodoro B. Guinto, who had conducted the preliminary investigation, filed with respondent court two separate criminal complaints both for serious oral defamation, the one against petitioner Federico Quizon in Criminal Case No. 4203 and the other petitioner Profitisa Quizon in Criminal Case No. 4204, committed, according to the said complaints on the same day, November 11, 1963.

Upon being called for arraignment, petitioner presented a written motion to quash contending principally that the offense charged had already prescribed as of May 9, 1964. In support of their motion, petitioners argued that by express provision of Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the offense of oral defamation prescribes in six months and under the authority of People vs. Del Rosario, 97 Phil. 67, the correct computation of said six months for the purposes of their particular case is as follows: From Nov. 12 to 30, 1963 there were 19 days December, 1963 had 31 days January, 1964 had 31 days February, 1964 had 29 days March, 1964 had 31 days April, 1964 had 30 days From May 1 to 9, 1964 was a matter of 9 days From Nov.

12, 1963 to May 9, 1964 were. 180 days Overruling their motion, respondent court reasoned out thus: From Nov. 12 to 30, 1964, there are 19 days December 30 days January 30 days February 30 days March 30 days April 30 days From May 1 to 11, 1964, there are 11 days From Nov.

12, 1963 to May 11, 1964 are 180 days A study of the provisions of the laws pertinent to the issue at bar leads one to agree with the mode of computation submitted by the public prosecutor because Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, in providing for the prescriptive period for oral defamation, speaks of month, not of day, as the basic unit in reckoning the duration of the prescription, when it says that "offenses of oral defamation ... shall prescribe in six months." Article 13 of the new Civil Code says that "when the laws speak of ..., months, ..., it shall be understood that ...

month ... of thirty days each ... It says further that "If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which they respectively have.

Conformably to these legal provisions and applying the same to the case at bar, the computation given by the public prosecutor appears to be correct. The month of November was designated in the complaint so it will be given the number of days it has in the calendar which is 30 days. But the succeeding months of December, January, February, March and April, which are the months comprised within the prescriptive period of six (6) months are nowhere specifically designated by their name, consequently they should be given the 30-day period of duration in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 13 aforesaid.

It is believed, and the Court so holds, that this formula or mode of computation is more squarely in accordance with the one adopted in the case of People vs. Del Rosario(GR No. L-7234) quoted in the motion to quash. The month of May, having been designated in the complaint, was given the number of 31 days it has in the calendar, the succeeding month of June comprised within the prescriptive period was given 30-day duration, so it resulted to be thus: May 28 to 31 3 days (the 28th was excluded) June 30 days July 27 27 days