Susan Llenes vs Judge Dicdican

GR No. 122274
July 31, 1996
Facts:
Vivian Guinet filed with the Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas a complaint for grave oral
defamation against the petitioner, Susan Llenes, the Education Supervisor II of
DECS Regional Office VII. The investigating officer, in his resolution, recommended
that the case be endorsed to the Office of the City Prosecutor for the filing of the
necessary information against the petitioner. The City Prosecutor filed with the
Municipal Trial Court an information for grave oral defamation against the petitioner.
The latter filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the criminal
liability has been extinguished through prescription when the information was filed
186 days or 6 months and 6 days after the alleged commission of the crime.
The motion was denied by the Municipal Trial Court which was affirmed by the
Regional Trial Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the offense of grave oral defamation committed by the petitioner
has already prescribed?
Held:
No, the petition has no merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower
courts.
Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of oral defamation and
slander by deed shall prescribe in six months and in relation to Article 91 of the
same code, the prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime
is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to
run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted
or acquitted, XXXX
The filing of the private respondents complaint for grave oral defamation on
October 13, 1993, or barely twenty days from the commission of the crime charged,
against the petitioner with the Ombudsman-Visayas interrupted the running of the
period of prescription of the said offense.