Calderon-Bargas vs RTC
Pasig Metro Manila, 227 SCRA 56
Criminal Case Digest
Digested Cases
Criminal Law
FACTS:
On
April 10, 1987, Bennett Ll. Thelmo filed an affidavit-complainant with the
office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Rizal for libel against Raul, Locsin - editor and publisher of the newspaper, Business
Day; Leticia Locsin and Salvador Lacson – managing editor and columnist for
defamatory statements against the petitioner – Thelmo in an article in the
newspaper entitled “Insurance Monopoly” where it stated there the the
respondent was a grafter and a bribe-giver.
8
February 1988, the Prosecutor issued a resolution recommending the filing
of three (3) separate criminal cases for libel against the three private
respondents.
18
October 1988, respondent Salvador Lacson filed a motion to quash on
the ground of prescription.
The
prosecutor assigned to prosecute the case, after given 15 days to file and
opposition and after few extensions given, for the comment on the motion to
quash, failed to file therewith due to the reason that he was not furnished a
copy of the said motion. Also, on the prosecutor’s failure to prosecute for
over two (2) years, and the cases have been pending for four (4) years, only
delayed the case. The delay in the investigation violated the rights of the
accused for the constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition of
their cases.
ISSUE:
The main issue for resolution in this petition
is whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion when he ordered
the quashal of three (3) separate informations for libel against respondents on
the grounds of prescription and their right to speedy trial.
HELD:
Statements
to wit:
All told, we hold that the dismissal of
the criminal cases at bench is proper on the ground of the prosecution's
failure to prosecute the cases which, as a consequence, denied the private
respondents their right to a speedy trial.
ACCORDINGLY, the assailed orders of
respondent court, dated 30 August 1991 and 16 December 1991, rendered in
Criminal Case Nos. 73490-92 are SET ASIDE. But the respondent court is ordered
to DISMISS said criminal cases against private respondents with prejudice.
