Filing a Complaint with the Ombudsman Interrupts Prescription for Grave Oral Defamation

G.R. No. 122274, July 31, 1996

Imagine a heated argument escalating into a shouting match, where hurtful words are exchanged. In the Philippines, such a scenario could potentially lead to a charge of grave oral defamation. But what happens when the offended party is a government employee and files a complaint with the Ombudsman? Does this action halt the ticking clock on the statute of limitations? This case explores that very question, clarifying when the prescriptive period for filing a grave oral defamation case is interrupted.

In Llenes v. Dicdican, the Supreme Court tackled whether filing a complaint for grave oral defamation with the Office of the Ombudsman against a government official interrupts the period within which such an offense can be prosecuted. This decision provides clarity on the procedural aspects of prosecuting defamation cases involving public officials.

Understanding Prescription in Criminal Offenses

Prescription, in legal terms, refers to the time limit within which a criminal case must be filed. If the case is filed after this period, the accused can no longer be prosecuted. This concept is enshrined in Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code.

Article 90 specifies the prescriptive periods for various crimes. For grave oral defamation, the prescriptive period is six months. This means that the information (the formal charge) must be filed in court within six months from the date the defamatory words were uttered.

Article 91 is crucial because it explains when this prescriptive period is interrupted. It states that the period is interrupted by “the filing of the complaint or information.” However, the law doesn’t specify where this complaint must be filed to effect such interruption. This ambiguity has led to conflicting interpretations, which the Supreme Court has addressed over time.

Example: Suppose a defamatory statement is made on January 1st. The offended party has until July 1st to file the information in court. If they file it on July 2nd, the case can be dismissed based on prescription.

The central question revolves around the meaning of “filing of the complaint.” Does it mean filing directly with the court that has jurisdiction over the offense, or does filing with another government agency, like the Ombudsman, also suffice to interrupt the prescriptive period?

The Case: Llenes vs. Dicdican

The case of Susan V. Llenes vs. Hon. Isaias P. Dicdican arose from a complaint for grave oral defamation filed by Vivian G. Ginete, an officer-in-charge at the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), against Susan V. Llenes, an Education Supervisor II at the same office.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• September 23, 1993: The alleged defamatory statements were made.
• October 13, 1993: Ginete filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas (Ombudsman-Visayas).
• March 15, 1994: The Graft Investigation Officer recommended that the case be endorsed to the City Prosecutor of Cebu City.
• March 28, 1994: The City Prosecutor filed an information for grave oral defamation against Llenes with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
• May 30, 1994: Llenes filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the crime had already prescribed.

The MTC denied the motion to quash, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision. Llenes then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter, particularly the cases of People vs. Olarte and Francisco vs. Court of Appeals. These cases established that filing a complaint with the fiscal’s office (now prosecutor’s office) for preliminary investigation suspends the running of the prescriptive period.

The Court then addressed the key question: Is filing a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman equivalent to filing it with the prosecutor’s office for purposes of interrupting prescription?

The Court emphasized the broad powers granted to the Ombudsman by the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989, stating that these provisions vest upon the Ombudsman and his Deputies the power to initiate or conduct preliminary investigations in criminal cases filed against public officers or employees.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled:

“Accordingly, the filing of the private respondent’s complaint for grave oral defamation against the petitioner with the Ombudsman-Visayas tolled the running of the period of prescription of the said offense. Since the complaint was filed on 13 October 1993, or barely twenty days from the commission of the crime charged, the filing then of the information on 28 March 1994 was very well within the six-month prescriptive period.”

Practical Implications of the Ruling

This ruling clarifies that when a complaint for grave oral defamation is filed with the Ombudsman against a public officer or employee, it effectively stops the clock on the prescriptive period. This is a significant point for both complainants and respondents in such cases.

For complainants, it provides assurance that their case will not be dismissed on the grounds of prescription simply because they chose to file with the Ombudsman, an agency specifically tasked with investigating public officials.

For respondents, it means that they cannot rely on the defense of prescription if a complaint was filed with the Ombudsman within the six-month period, even if the information was filed in court after that period.

Key Lessons:

• Filing a complaint for grave oral defamation with the Office of the Ombudsman against a public official interrupts the prescriptive period.
• The six-month prescriptive period for grave oral defamation starts from the day the defamatory words are uttered.
• It is crucial to file a complaint as soon as possible to avoid any issues with prescription.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is grave oral defamation?

A: Grave oral defamation is a form of defamation committed through spoken words that is considered serious enough to warrant criminal prosecution.

Q: How long do I have to file a case for grave oral defamation?

A: The prescriptive period for grave oral defamation is six months from the date the defamatory words were spoken.

Q: If I file a complaint with the police, does that stop the prescriptive period?

A: Filing a complaint with law enforcement may initiate an investigation, but it is the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office or the court that formally interrupts the prescriptive period.

Q: What if the person who defamed me leaves the Philippines?

A: Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code states that the term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.

Q: What happens if the prosecutor dismisses the case and then refiles it later?

A: Article 91 also states that the prescriptive period shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.

Q: Does this apply to other crimes besides grave oral defamation?

A: The principles regarding interruption of prescription can apply to other crimes, but the specific rules may vary depending on the law governing the offense.

Q: What is the role of the Ombudsman in these cases?

A: The Ombudsman is responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by public officers and employees.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and prosecution related to defamation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.