G.R. No. 28897 , January 27, 1928
SEGUNDA SURBANO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE DIEGO GLORIA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, and THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF TAYABAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Segunda Surbano was convicted by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Tayabas for the misdemeanor of *slight insults*. The original complaint charged her with *grave insults*. She filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the CFI lost jurisdiction because the crime for which she was convicted (slight insults) had already prescribed. She contended that since the judgment was for a lesser offense than charged, and that lesser offense had prescribed, the court could no longer validly convict her. The incident occurred on December 27, 1926. The offended party filed a complaint the next day, December 28, 1926, with the justice of the peace. After preliminary investigation, this complaint was dismissed on February 18, 1927, for lack of evidence. A new complaint was then filed in the CFI on March 15, 1927.

ISSUE

Whether or not the crime of slight insults, for which the petitioner was convicted, had already prescribed, thereby depriving the Court of First Instance of jurisdiction to render the judgment.

RULING

NO, the crime had not prescribed. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.

The Court found it unnecessary to resolve the broader jurisdictional question of whether a CFI loses jurisdiction if it convicts an accused of a lesser offense that has already prescribed, given that the CFI originally acquired jurisdiction over the grave offense charged. This is because, based on the facts, the lesser offense of slight insults had not prescribed.

Applying Article 131 of the Penal Code, the prescriptive period for misdemeanors (which included slight insults) was two months. However, this period is interrupted from the commencement of proceedings against the offender. The period starts to run again only when such proceedings terminate without conviction.

In this case:
1. The offense occurred on December 27, 1926.
2. Proceedings commenced with the filing of the complaint on December 28, 1926, which interrupted the running of the prescriptive period.
3. These proceedings terminated with the dismissal of the complaint on February 18, 1927. From this date, the two-month prescriptive period began to run anew.
4. The new complaint was filed in the CFI on March 15, 1927. Only 25 days had elapsed from February 18 to March 15.

Since only 25 days of the two-month (60-day) prescriptive period had passed when the new complaint was filed, the crime of slight insults had not prescribed. Consequently, the CFI’s judgment was valid and legally effective. The temporary suspension of the judgment’s execution was lifted.