People vs.

Cuaresma and dela Cruz

April 18, 1989

Narvasa, J.

Special Civil Action for certiorari to review the orders of the City Court of
Dumaguete City

Facts:

Aug. 6, 1978. Cuaresma publicly speak and uttered against Luz Lumacao insulting
and defamatory words and

expressions. Lumacao contends that Cuaresma dishonored her by accusing her as a

paramour of her husband Victor.

Cuaresma moved to quash the case in violation of Art. 360 of RPC. Respondent
Judge denied the motion to quash.

The Judge also required the fiscal to file with the Court the verified complaint of the
offended party within 10 days.

Three months later, Cuaresma filed another motion to quash alleging that the
offense had prescribed.

o The filing on Aug. 21, 1978 of the original information had not interrupted the
running of the period of prescription

of the crime (2 months from discovery) and the prescriptive period had lapsed long
prior to the submission of the

corrective complaint on Aug. 4, 1980.

Respondent Judge agreed and ordered dismissal of the case. Fiscal’s motion for
reconsideration dated June 26, 1981

was belatedly filed and was denied for lack of sufficient merit and for having been
filed out of time. No steps were

taken until after 3 years when the Second Assistant City Fiscal commenced the
present case.

Held:

The Order on August 4, 1980 was appealable at the instance of the People. The
appeal could have been taken within
15 days from the promulgation of the judgment or order. The appeal had it been
timely taken should have been

successful.

o The filing by the complainant of her complaint in the form of an affidavit had
indeed tolled the period of

prescription. And the subsequent filing of an information based on the complaint

sworn before the fiscal is

sufficient compliance with Art. 344 of RPC and Sec. 4 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.

o The affidavit could have been presented as evidence but even if not offered is a
matter of judicial notice.

The action was filed by the Second Assistant City Fiscal and not by the SolGen, and
hence dismissible on this

account.

The certiorari suit is being made to substitute for, and perform the function of an
appeal which is not permissible.

o Action was filed too late

o Commenced only after about 3 years had elapsed from the promulgation of the
order sought to be annulled

o Remedy of certiorari is limited to acts of any agency or officer exercising judicial

functions or of any judge which

are claimed to be “without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion”

Error did not constitute a grave abuse of discretion but an error of law.