Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Francisco vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Sirci Ram
    1) Dr. Angeles filed a case against Dr. Francisco and Atty. Bernardino in 1966 for defamation stemming from remarks made in December 1965. They were convicted in 1973 but the conviction was modified on appeal to find them guilty of simple slander. 2) Francisco argued simple slander had prescribed under the two-month statute of limitations. The Solicitor General argued the six-month limitation for grave oral defamation charged in the information applied. 3) The Court held that simple slander had prescribed so Francisco could not be convicted of it, and that filing a complaint interrupts prescription, so the charges were not time-barred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Francisco vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Sirci Ram
    30 views1 page
    1) Dr. Angeles filed a case against Dr. Francisco and Atty. Bernardino in 1966 for defamation stemming from remarks made in December 1965. They were convicted in 1973 but the conviction was modified on appeal to find them guilty of simple slander. 2) Francisco argued simple slander had prescribed under the two-month statute of limitations. The Solicitor General argued the six-month limitation for grave oral defamation charged in the information applied. 3) The Court held that simple slander had prescribed so Francisco could not be convicted of it, and that filing a complaint interrupts prescription, so the charges were not time-barred.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Dr. Angeles filed a case against Dr. Francisco and Atty. Bernardino in 1966 for defamation stemming from remarks made in December 1965. They were convicted in 1973 but the conviction was modified on appeal to find them guilty of simple slander. 2) Francisco argued simple slander had prescribed under the two-month statute of limitations. The Solicitor General argued the six-month limitation for grave oral defamation charged in the information applied. 3) The Court held that simple slander had prescribed so Francisco could not be convicted of it, and that filing a complaint interrupts prescription, so the charges were not time-barred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views1 page

    Francisco vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Sirci Ram
    1) Dr. Angeles filed a case against Dr. Francisco and Atty. Bernardino in 1966 for defamation stemming from remarks made in December 1965. They were convicted in 1973 but the conviction was modified on appeal to find them guilty of simple slander. 2) Francisco argued simple slander had prescribed under the two-month statute of limitations. The Solicitor General argued the six-month limitation for grave oral defamation charged in the information applied. 3) The Court held that simple slander had prescribed so Francisco could not be convicted of it, and that filing a complaint interrupts prescription, so the charges were not time-barred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Francisco v.

    CA, 122 SCRA 538 [1983]

    Facts:
    On February 6, 1966, Dr. Patrocinio Angeles, who was then the Director of the Morong Emergency
    Hospital, filed a case for intriguing against honor allegedly committed on December 26, 1965 by
    Dr. Emiliano and Atty. Harry Bernardino. On May 3, 1966, the Provincial Fiscal filed an information
    against Francisco and Bernardino with the CFI of Rizal of the crime of grave oral defamation.
    Later, upon order of the court, the information was amended by adding statements allegedly uttered by
    the two accused constituting the crime of slander. On Feb. 1, 1973, the trial court convicted
    Francisco and Bernardino of the crime of grave oral defamation and sentenced each of them
    the penalty of arresto mayor and was made to pay the complainant P10,000. Upon appeal in
    the Court of Appeals, the trial court's decision was modified finding the accused guilty of
    simple slander. Bernardino passed away while this petition was instituted in the Supreme Court.
    Francisco, then argues that since the CA had found that the offense committed was the lesser
    offense of simple slander, which under Art. 90 of the RPC, prescribes in two months, the CA should have
    dismissed the case. Further, Francisco claims that the CA should have acquitted him on the ground
    that the said crime had already prescribed as per evidence presented, the alleged defamatory
    remarks were committed on December 26, 1965, while the information charged against him
    was filed more than four months later. The Solicitor General, however, contends that "for the
    purpose of determining the proper prescriptive period, what should be considered is the nature
    of the offense charged in the information which is grave oral defamation, not the crime
    committed by the accused, as said crime was found by the Court to constitute only simple
    slander”. Since the prescription for grave oral defamation is six months, the crime has not yet
    prescribed when it the information was filed. Moreover, the Solicitor General argues that the
    filing of the complaint in the Fiscal's office interrupts the period of prescription. Only39 days
    had passed from the time the offense was allegedly committed to the day of the filing of
    the complaint.
    Issues:
    Whether or not the crime of simple slander found by the CA to be the offense committed by the petitioners
    has prescribed. Whether or not the filing of a complaint in the Fiscal's office interrupts the
    prescription of an offense.
    Held.
    1. Yes. An accused cannot be convicted for the lesser offense necessarily included in the crime
    charged if at the time of the filing of the information, the lesser offense has already prescribed.
    To hold otherwise, according to the Court, would be to sanction circumvention of the law on
    prescription by the simple expedient of accusing the defendant of the graver offense.2. Yes.
    Prescription is interrupted with the filing of the case even if the court is without jurisdiction,
    even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation. Thus, the filing
    of the complaint in the Fiscal's office interrupts the period of prescription.

    You might also like