[ G.R. No. 34334. November 28, 1930 ] 55 Phil. 345
[ G.R. No. 34334. November 28, 1930 ]
PATEICIO SANTOS, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE “PHILIPPINE TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS,” RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
h1 { } h2 { background-color:#cccccc; font-weight: bold; } h3 { font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; } div#footer { }
The ruling appealed from holds that Virginia Santos, a minor, accused in the municipal court of Manila of violating an ordinance, and by said court committed to the Philippine Training School for Girls, is entitled to her liberty, and orders that she be immediately released, and that the bond filed by her be cancelled.
This ruling is based on the contention that the act for which she was tried in the municipal court had already prescribed when the complaint was filed, and that there was therefore no cause of action against her.
The Attorney-General assails the ruling of the court below. He contends that the evidence does not positively show the violation prosecuted has prescribed, and that even if it has, the defense of prescription is of no avail in habeas corpus proceedings.
We agree with the court below that the alleged prescription has been proved of record. Nor is the fact that the date shown in the complaint may be changed by the evidence a bar to this conclusion. There is, indeed, no evidence to prove a different date, and so, that set forth in the complaint must stand; and such an allegation amounts to an admission by the prosecution of one of the essential elements to the computation of prescription; and upon the date thus alleged and not altered at the hearing, the defense was certainly entitled to rely. Nor is the doctrine cited by the Attorney-General, laid down in the case of United States vs. Cardona (1 Phil., 381), a bar to this conclusion, though it upholds the right of the prosecution to adduce evidence to show that the crime was committed on a different date from that alleged in the information; it was not said in that case that the date of the offense as given in the information was not sufficient proof for the purposes of prescription. This allegation, if not altered by the evidence, is a solid and sufficient ground for invoking prescription against the prosecution.
But it happens that the plea of prescription now invoked by the petitioner was not advanced during the hearing of the case before the municipal court, and as the Attorney-General correctly contends, such a plea will not lie in habeas corpus proceedings. In granting the writ, the lower court relied upon the ruling by this court in People vs. Moran (44 Phil., 387), which was an ordinary criminal case and not an habeas corpus proceedings and where the prescription of the violation of the Election Law was only alleged after the whole proceedings were over, because only then had the Legislature passed a law to that effect. In that case there was no waiver of that defense for the simple reason that there was no prescription. If the plea of prescription will not be admitted by the courts in habeas corpus proceedings, it is precisely for the reason that it is deemed to have been waived. Although that decision in People vs. Moran arose from the allegation of prescription made after the proceedings had terminated, it is but an affirmance of the principle that penal laws have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the culprit. Therefore it is not applicable in the case before us.
That the defense of prescription must be alleged during the proceedings in prosecution of the offense alleged to have prescribed, is a doctrine recognized by this court in United States vs. Serapio (23 Phil, 584) where the principle is supported by citations of Aldeguer vs. Hoskyn (2 Phil., 500), Domingo vs. Osorio (7 Phil., 405), Maxilom vs. Tabotabo (9 Phil., 390), Harty vs. Luna (13 Phil., 31), and Sunico vs. Ramirez (14 Phil., 500).
That the defense of prescription is no ground for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is a doctrine recognized by the North. American jurisprudence, as may be seen from the following:
“If the statute of limitations is relied upon, it must be set up at the trial, either by a special plea or under the general issue. It is not a ground for a demurrer to the indictment, at least where the indictment does not show on its face that defendant is not within the exception of the statute. Nor is the defense available on a motion in arrest of judgment, or on a application for a writ of habeas corpus” (16 C. J., 416.) (Italics ours.)
“All questions which may arise in the orderly course of a criminal prosecution are to be determined by the court to whose jurisdiction the defendant has been subjected by the law, and the fact that a defendant has a good and sufficient defense to a criminal charge on which he is held will not entitle him to his discharge on habeas corpus” (12 R. C. L,, 1206.) (Italics ours.)
The petitioner cites cases both local and from the courts of the United States to the effect that lack of jurisdiction over the defendant or the offense is a ground for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. This is true, inasmuch as lack of jurisdiction constitutes a fatal defect annulling all proceedings; but the prescription of an offense does not deprive a court of jurisdiction. By prescription the State or the People loses the right to prosecute the crime or to demand the service of the penalty imposed; but this does not mean that the court loses jurisdiction either over the matter of litigation or over the parties.
For this reason, the action which should be taken by a competent court upon the plea of prescription of the offense or the penal action, duly alleged and established, is not to inhibit itself, which would be proper if it had no jurisdiction, but on the contrary to exercise jurisdiction, and to decide the case upon its merits, holding the action to have prescribed, and absolving the defendant.
Thus, the Spanish Law of Criminal Procedure of September 14, 1882, known as suppletory law and as a sound doctrine contained in rule 95 of the Provisional Law for the application of the provisions of the Penal Code to the Philippine Islands, in treating in articles 666 et seq. of the preliminary defenses (the prescription of crimes is there so considered), distinguishes cases of prescription from those of lack of jurisdiction, and clearly provides (article 674) that when the question of lack of jurisdiction is raised, and the court deems it well taken, it shall abstain from taking cognizance of the case, whereas if the exception taken refers to the prescription of the crime, then (article 675) the court decides the case by dismissing it and ordering that the defendant be set at liberty. It cannot be contended that the municipal court had no jurisdiction to commit Virginia Santos to the Philippine Training School for Girls, for Act No. 3203 confers such jurisdiction upon any court before whom a minor is accused. Section 3 of said Act provides:
Whenever any boy or girl less than eighteen years of age shall be accused in any court of an offense not punishable by life imprisonment or death etc.
Finding no merit in the habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner, the order appealed from is reversed and the writ denied, without express pronouncement of costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.