Brillante v CA

G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571 19, 2004

October

ROBERTO BRILLANTE,  petitioner,

vs. COURT O A!!EAL" #$% TE !EO!LE O TE !ILI!!INE",  respondents.

petitioner Roberto Brillante (Brillante), also known as Bobby Brillante, questions his convictions for libel for writing and causing to be published in 19 an open letter addressed to then !resident "ora#on ". $quino discussing the alleged participation of $tty. %e&o'ar %e&o'ar Binay  (Binay), then the *" +ayor  and a candidate for the position of +ayor in the +unicipality (now "ity) of +akati, and -r. e'esio !rudente (!rudente), then !resident of the !olytechnic /niversity of the !hilippines, in an assassination plot against $ugusto 0y&uco (0y&uco), another candidate for +ayor of +akati at that ti'e. n %anuary , 19, Brillante, then a candidate for the position of "ouncilor in +akati, held a press conference at the +akati 0ports "lub which was attended by so'e 23 &ournalists. *n the course of the press conference, Brillante accused Binay of plotting the assassination of 0y&uco. 4e further accused Binay of terroris', inti'idation and harass'ent of the +akati electorate. Brillante also circulated a'ong the  &ournalists copies copies of an open letter to !resident  $quino which discussed discussed in detail his his charges 5 against Binay. 6he open letter was subsequently published under the title !lea to "ory770ave +akati in newspapers such as the People’s the People’s Journal, Balita, Malaya and Philippine Daily Inquirer .2 6he pertinent portions of the open letter read8  $s a result of the publication of the open letter, letter, Binay filed with the +akati fiscals office four co'plaints for libel against Brillante, as the author of the letter: ;onong, Buan a nd "a'ino for writing and publishing the news article on Brillantes accusations against hi' in the People’s Journal; 4ernande#, ui'lat), !ublisher and ?ditor7in7"hief of Balita, and 0ison as !resident of $. 0ison and $ssociates.11 0ubsequently, five Informations for Informations for libel against Brillante were filed with the Regional 6rial "ourt (R6") of +akati. 0i'ilarly, 0i'ilarly, on %anuary 12, 19, !rudente filed four co'plaints for libel against Brillante and the editors and publishers of the newspapers where the open letter was published. n %anuary 1@, 199, four Informations for Informations for libel were filed against Brillante and several co7accused with the R6" of +anila n %anuary 2, 1995, the R6"7+anila found Brillante guilty of libel on four counts. 0ubsequently, 0ubsequently, Brillante appealed the Decision of  Decision of  the R6"7+anila to the "ourt of  $ppeals.1 Brillante contended that when the Informations in Informations in "ri'inal "ases o. 97 @9@1A to 1 were filed by the prosecutor on %anuary 1@, 199, the offense had already prescribed because 'ore than one year had elapsed since the publication of the open letter on %anuary 13, 11 and 1, 19. 4e also averred that the open letter which he wrote and caused to be published was not defa'atory and was without 'alice. Brillante also clai'ed that the publication is considered privileged co''unication. =inally, =inally, he argued that he is entitled to equal protection of the laws and should be acquitted of the offenses charged like his co7accused.19 *ssue8 whether the offense of libel had already prescribed when the Informations were Informations were filed with the R6"7+anila and R6"7+akati ith respect to the issue of prescription, the fourth paragraph of $rticle 93 of the Revised !enal "ode provides that the cri'e of libel or other si'ilar offenses shall prescribe in one year. year. *n deter'ining when the one7year prescriptive period should be reckoned, reference 'ust be 'ade to $rticle 91 of the sa'e code which sets forth the rule on the co'putation of prescriptive periods of offenses8

omputation of prescription of offenses!"6he period of prescription shall co''ence to run fro' the day on which the cri'e is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the co'plaint or infor'ation, and shall co''ence to run again when such proceedings ter'inate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are un&ustifiably stopped for an y reason not i'putable to hi'.

 $s is a well7known fact, like the proceedings in the court conducting a preli'inary investigation, a proceeding in the =iscalEs ffice 'ay ter'inate without conviction or acquittal.

6he aforequoted provision eCpressly states that prescriptive period shall be interrupted by the filing of the co'plaint or infor'ation. 6he 'eaning of the phrase shall be interrupted by the filing of the co'plaint or infor'ation in  $rticle 91 has been settled in the land'ark case of People #! $larte,2 where the "ourt settled divergent views as to the effect of filing a co'plaint with the +unicipal 6rial "ourt for purposes of preli'inary investigation on the prescriptive period of the offense. 6he "ourt therein held that the filing of the co'plaint for purposes of preli'inary investigation interrupts the period of prescription of cri'inal responsibility. *t eCplained thus8

6o the writerEs 'ind, these reasons logically call with equal force, for the eCpress overruling also of the doctrine in !eople vs. 6ayco, 5 !hil. 239, (19A1) that the filing of a co'plaint or denuncia by the offended party with the "ity =iscalEs ffice which is required by law to conduct the preli'inary investigation does not interrupt the period of prescription. *n chartered cities, cri'inal prosecution is generally initiated by the filing of the co'plaint or denuncia with the city fiscal for preli'inary investigation. *n the case of provincial fiscals, besides being e'powered like 'unicipal &udges to conduct preli'inary investigations, they 'ay even reverse actions of 'unicipal &udges with respect to charges triable by "ourts of =irst instance . . .. @1

Dthe filing of the co'plaint with the +unicipal "ourt, even if it be 'erely for purposes of preli'inary eCa'ination or investigation, should, and does, interrupt the period of prescription of the cri'inal responsibility, even if the court where the co'plaint or infor'ation is filed can not try the case on its 'erits. 0everal reasons buttress this conclusion8 first, the teCt of $rticle 91 of the Revised !enal "ode, in declaring that the period of prescription shall be interrupted by the filing of the co'plaint or infor'ation without distinguishing whether the co'plaint is filed in the court for preli'inary eCa'ination or investigation 'erely, or for action on the 'erits. 0econd, even if the court where the co'plaint or  infor'ation is filed 'ay only proceed to investigate the case, its actuations already represent the initial step of the proceedings against the offender. 6hird, it is un&ust to deprive the in&ured party the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under his control.  $ll that the victi' of the offense 'ay do on his part to initiate the prosecution is to file the requisite co'plaint. 6hereafter, the "ourt in %rancisco #! ourt of  &ppeals@3 clarified that the filing of the co'plaint

with the fiscals office also suspends the running of the prescriptive period of a cri'e8

 $s %ustice "laudio 6eehankee has observed8

6here is no conflict in the pronounce'ents of the "ourt in $larte and %rancisco as Brillante erroneously suggests.$larte laid down the doctrine that a co'plaint filed for purposes of preli'inary investigation tolls the running of the prescriptive period of a cri'inal offense. 6he cri'inal co'plaint for libel in that case was filed, for the purpose of preli'inary investigation, with the %ustice of the !eace "ourt in !o#orrubio, !angasinan. 4ence, in setting the doctrine, the "ourt referred to the filing of the co'plaint in the +unicipal "ourt. @ 6he question of whether the doctrine laid down in $larte also applies to cri'inal co'plaints filed with the prosecutors office was settled in%rancisco. 0pecifically, the "ourt in %rancisco a'plified the $larte doctrine when it categorically ruled that the filing of a co'plaint with the fiscals office suspends the running of the prescriptive period of a cri'inal offense. 6hus, the "ourt of $ppeals co''itted no reversible error in ruling that the offense of libel had not yet prescribed when the infor'ations against Brillante and his co7accused were filed in the R6"7+anila and R6"7+akati.