Justado v. People, G.R. No.

219567, February 1, 2017

Doctrine:
The case of Roberto M. Justado v. People of the Philippines revolves around the prescription of criminal
offenses and the application of the Rules on Summary Procedure versus the Revised Penal Code (RPC). It
establishes that when a conflict arises between procedural rules and substantive law (such as the RPC),
substantive law prevails. In this case, the running or stalling of the prescriptive period for the offense is
governed by the RPC, not the Rules on Summary Procedure. Additionally, it reaffirms the general rule that
factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), deserve great
weight and respect and should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear mistake in their appreciation.

Facts:
Roberto M. Justado was charged with Malicious Mischief and Other Light Threats against his sister, Maria
Belen M. Justado. The dispute arose from property-related issues within the family, leading to a
confrontation on February 22, 2010. Justado threatened to shoot Belen in the heat of anger but did not carry
out the threat. Belen filed a complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP) on
March 29, 2010, accusing Justado of grave threats, physical injuries, and malicious mischief. The OCP
dismissed the physical injuries charge but found probable cause for malicious mischief and modified the
charge of grave threats to other light threats. Informations were filed on September 22, 2010, before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).

The MeTC convicted Justado of both Malicious Mischief and Other Light Threats, but the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) reversed the Malicious Mischief conviction on the grounds that the wash area was on Justado's
property, and he had the right to manage it. The RTC affirmed the conviction for Other Light Threats.

On appeal to the CA, Justado argued that the crime had prescribed because the information was filed beyond
the two-month prescriptive period for Other Light Threats. He claimed that only the filing of an information
in court, not the mere complaint before the OCP, could toll the prescriptive period, citing the Rules on
Summary Procedure.

Issues:
I. Whether Justado should be acquitted of the offense charged on the ground of prescription.
II. Whether Justado's conviction of Other Light Threats is supported by the evidence on record.

Ruling:
The Court ruled against Justado on both issues. It held that the filing of the complaint with the OCP
effectively tolled the running of the prescriptive period for the offense of Other Light Threats, as prescribed
by Article 91 of the RPC. The Court emphasized that the RPC's provisions on prescription of offenses
prevail over the Rules on Summary Procedure. Consequently, Justado's conviction for Other Light Threats
was upheld based on his oral threats made in anger.

Moreover, the Court noted that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA,
deserve great weight and respect and should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear mistake in
their appreciation. In this case, the Court found no reason to overturn the trial court's findings, and Justado's
conviction for Other Light Threats was affirmed.

Question: What is the main legal issue addressed in the case of Roberto M. Justado v. People of the
Philippines?
Answer: The main legal issue addressed in this case is whether the offense charged against Justado had
prescribed due to the timing of the filing of the complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) and
the subsequent filing of the information in court.

Question: What is the significance of the conflict between the Rules on Summary Procedure and the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) in this case?
Answer: The significance lies in the determination of which legal framework governs the prescription of
criminal offenses. The case clarifies that when a conflict arises between procedural rules (Rules on
Summary Procedure) and substantive law (RPC), substantive law prevails. This means that the prescription
of offenses, in this case, is governed by the provisions of the RPC, specifically Article 91, which states that
the filing of a complaint with the OCP effectively tolls the prescriptive period.

Question: What were the charges brought against Roberto M. Justado, and why were they filed?

Answer: Justado was charged with Malicious Mischief and Other Light Threats. These charges stemmed
from a dispute between Justado and his sister, Maria Belen M. Justado, related to property issues within the
family. Belen filed these charges as a result of an incident on February 22, 2010, during which Justado
threatened to shoot her in a fit of anger.

Question: Why did Roberto M. Justado argue that the crime had prescribed, and what was his basis for this
argument?
Answer: Justado argued that the crime had prescribed based on the timing of the filing of the information
in court. He claimed that only the filing of an information in court, not the earlier complaint lodged with
the OCP, could effectively toll the prescriptive period. His basis for this argument was the Rules on
Summary Procedure.
Question: How did the courts, including the Court of Appeals (CA), respond to Justado's argument
regarding the prescription of the offense?

Answer: The courts, including the CA, rejected Justado's argument and upheld his conviction for Other
Light Threats. They ruled that the filing of the complaint with the OCP effectively tolled the prescriptive
period, as stipulated in Article 91 of the RPC. They emphasized that substantive law, in this case, the RPC,
takes precedence over procedural rules.

Question: What is the general rule regarding the weight given to factual findings of the trial court, and was
it applied in this case?

Answer: The general rule is that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA,
deserve great weight and respect and should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear mistake in
their appreciation. This general rule was applied in the case, as the Court found no reason to overturn the
trial court's findings, leading to the affirmation of Justado's conviction for Other Light Threats.

REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE

RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC DATED OCTOBER 15, 1991

PROVIDING FOR THE REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE FOR
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN
CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURTS.

Pursuant to Section 36 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P Blg.

129) and to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of the cases
referred to herein, the Court Resolved to promulgate the following Revised Rule
on Summary Procedure: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

I.
Applicability

Section 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the summary procedure in the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial
Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within
their jurisdiction: chanrob lesvirtuallawlib rary

A. Civil Cases:
chanrob lesvirtuallawlib rary
(1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount
of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are
awarded, the same shall not exceed twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00).

(2) All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount
of the plaintiff's claim does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00),
exclusive of interest and costs. chanrob les virtual law lib rarychanrobles virtual law library

B. Criminal Cases: chanrob lesvirtuallawlib rary

(1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations; chanrobles virtual law li brary

(2) Violations of the rental law; chanrobles virtual la w library

(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances; chanrobles virtual law libra ry

(4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense
charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding
(P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule
shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00).

This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs cause of action is
pleaded in the same complaint with another cause of action subject to the
ordinary procedure; nor to a criminal case where the offense charged is
necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary procedure.
virtual law librarychanrobles virtual law l ibrary
chanrob les

Sec. 2. Determination of applicability. — Upon the filing of a civil or criminal

action, the court shall issue an order declaring whether or not the case shall be
governed by this Rule A patently erroneous determination to avoid the
application of the Rule on Summary Procedure is a ground for disciplinary
action. chanrobles virtual law librarychanrob les virtual law l ibrary

II.
Civil Cases

Sec. 3. Pleadings. —

A. Pleadings allowed. — The only pleadings allowed to be filed are the

complaints, compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims' pleaded in the answer,
and the answers thereto.

B. Verifications. — All pleadings shall be verified.

Sec. 4. Duty of court. — After the court determines that the case falls under
summary procedure, it may, from an examination of the allegations therein and
such evidence as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any of
the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a civil action. If no ground
for dismissal is found it shall forthwith issue summons which shall state that
the summary procedure under this Rule shall apply. d-c chanrobles virtual law library

Sec. 5. Answer. — Within ten (10) days from service of summons, the
defendant shall file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the
plaintiff. Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded therein shall be deemed
waived, except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Cross-claims and
compulsory counterclaims not asserted in the answer shall be considered
barred. The answer to counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed and served
within ten (10) days from service of the answer in which they are pleaded.
law library
chanrob les virtual law lib rarychanrobles virtua l

Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. — Should the defendant fail to answer the
complaint within the period above provided, the court, motu proprio, or on
motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts
alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein: Provided,
however, that the court may in its discretion reduce the amount of damages and
attorney's fees claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable. This
is without prejudice to the applicability of Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of
Court, if there are two or more defendants.

Sec. 7. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties. — Not later than thirty

(30) days after the last answer is filed, a preliminary conference shall be held.
The rules on pre-trial in ordinary cases shall be applicable to the preliminary
conference unless inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule. chanrob les virtual law lib rarychanrobles virtual law library

The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference shall be a

cause for the dismissal of his complaint. The defendant who appears in the
absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his counterclaim in
accordance with Section 6 hereof. All cross-claims shall be dismissed.

If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment
in accordance with Section 6 hereof. This Rule shall not apply where one of two
or more defendants sued under a common cause of action who had pleaded a
common defense shall appear at the preliminary conference.

Sec. 8. Record of preliminary conference. — Within five (5) days after the
termination of the preliminary conference, the court shall issue an order stating
the matters taken up therein, including but not limited to: chanrob lesvirtuallawlib rary

(a) Whether the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, and if so, the
terms thereof;

(b) The stipulations or admissions entered into by the parties;.

(c) Whether, on the basis of the pleadings and the stipulations and admissions
made by the parties, judgment may be rendered without the need of further
proceedings, in which event the judgment shall be rendered within thirty (30)
days from issuance of the order;

(d) A clear specification of material facts which remain controverted; and chanrobles virtual law li brary

(e) Such other matters intended to expedite the disposition of the case. chanrob les virtual law lib rarychanrobles virtua l law lib rary

Sec. 9. Submission of affidavits and position papers. — Within ten (10) days
from receipt of the order mentioned in the next preceding section, the parties
shall submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence on the factual
issues defined in the order, together with their position papers setting forth the
law and the facts relied upon by them. chanrob les virtual law lib rarychanrobles virtual law libra ry

Sec. 10. Rendition of judgment. — Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the
last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the
same, the court shall render judgment.

However should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it
may, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be clarified,
and require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said
matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be
rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last clarificatory
affidavits, or the expiration of the period for filing the same.

The court shall not resort to the clarificatory procedure to gain time for the
rendition of the judgment.

III.
Criminal Cases

Sec. 11. How commenced. — The filing of criminal cases falling within the
scope of this Rule shall be either by complaint or by information: Provided,
however, that in Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities. such cases shall
be commenced only by information, except when the offense cannot be
prosecuted de oficio. chanrobles virtual law library

The complaint or information shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the

compliant and of his witnesses in such number of copies as there are accused
plus two (2) copies for the court's files.If this requirement is not complied with
within five (5) days from date of filing, the care may be dismissed. chanrob les virtual law librar ychanrobles virtual law libra ry

Sec. 12. Duty of court. — chanrobles virtual law library

(a) If commenced by compliant. — On the basis of the compliant and the

affidavits and other evidence accompanying the same, the court may dismiss
the case outright for being patently without basis or merit and order the release
of the amused if in custody.
(b) If commenced by information. — When the case is commenced by
information, or is not dismissed pursuant to the next preceding paragraph, the
court shall issue an order which, together with copies of the affidavits and other
evidence submitted by the prosecution, shall require the accused to submit his
counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses as well as any evidence in
his behalf, serving copies thereof on the complainant or prosecutor not later
than ten (10) days from receipt of said order. The prosecution may file reply
affidavits within ten (10) days after receipt of the counter-affidavits of the
defense.

Sec. 13. Arraignment and trial. — Should the court, upon a consideration of the
complaint or information and the affidavits submitted by both parties, find no
cause or ground to hold the accused for trial, it shall order the dismissal of the
case; otherwise, the court shall set the case for arraignment and trial.

If the accused is in custody for the crime charged, he shall be immediately

arraigned and if he enters a plea of guilty, he shall forthwith be sentenced.
law library
chanrob les virtual law lib rarychanrobles virtua l

Sec. 14. Preliminary conference. — Before conducting the trial, the court shall
call the parties to a preliminary conference during which a stipulation of facts
may be entered into, or the propriety of allowing the accused to enter a plea of
guilty to a lesser offense may be considered, or such other matters may be taken
up to clarify the issues and to ensure a speedy disposition of the case.However,
no admission by the accused shall be used against him unless reduced to writing
and signed by the accused and his counsel.A refusal or failure to stipulate shall
not prejudice the accused.

Sec. 15. Procedure of trial. — At the trial, the affidavits submitted by the
parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed
the same. Witnesses who testified may be subjected to cross-examination,
redirect or re-cross examination. Should the affiant fail to testify, his affidavit
shall not be considered as competent evidence for the party presenting the
affidavit, but the adverse party may utilize the same for any admissible purpose.

Except in rebuttal or surrebuttal, no witness shall be allowed to testify unless

his affidavit was previously submitted to the court in accordance with Section
12 hereof. chanrobles virtual law librarychanrobles virtua l law lib rary

However, should a party desire to present additional affidavits or counter-

affidavits as part of his direct evidence, he shall so manifest during the
preliminary conference, stating the purpose thereof. If allowed by the court,
the additional affidavits of the prosecution or the counter-affidavits of the
defense shall be submitted to the court and served on the adverse party not
later than three (3) days after the termination of the preliminary conference. If
the additional affidavits are presented by the prosecution, the accused may file
his counter-affidavits and serve the same on the prosecution within three (3)
days from such service.

Sec. 16. Arrest of accused. — The court shall not order the arrest of the accused
except for failure to appear whenever required. Release of the person arrested
shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to
the court.

Sec. 17. Judgment. — Where a trial has been conducted, the court shall
promulgate the judgment not later than thirty (30) days after the termination
of trial. chanrobles virtual law librarychanrobles virtua l law li brary

IV.
COMMON PROVISIONS

Sec. 18. Referral to Lupon. — Cases requiring referral to the Lupon for
conciliation under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508 where there
is no showing of compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed without
prejudice and may be revived only after such requirement shall have been
complied with. This provision shall not apply to criminal cases where the
accused was arrested without a warrant. chanrob les virtual law lib rarychanrobles virtual law library

Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The following pleadings, motions
or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule: chanrobles virtual law librar y

(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information

except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure
to comply with the preceding section;

(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;

(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for opening of
trial;

(d) Petition for relief from judgment;

(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other
paper; chanrobles virtual law libra ry

(f) Memoranda;

(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory

order issued by the court;

(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default; chanrobles virtual law lib rary

(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;

(j) Reply;

(k) Third party complaints;

(l) Interventions.
Sec. 20. Affidavits. — The affidavits required to be submitted under this Rule
shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiants which are
admissible in evidence, and shall show their competence to testify to the
matters stated therein.

A violation of this requirement may subject the party or the counsel who
submits the same to disciplinary action, and shall be cause to expunge the
inadmissible affidavit or portion thereof from the record.
chanrob les virtual law lib rarychanrobles virtua l law lib rary

Sec. 21. Appeal. — The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the
appropriate regional trial court which shall decide the same in accordance with
Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the regional trial court
in civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible entry and unlawful
detainer, shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal
that may be taken therefrom. Section 10 of Rule 70 shall be deemed repealed.

Sec. 22. Applicability of the regular rules. — The regular procedure prescribed
in the Rules of Court shall apply to the special cases herein provided for in a
suppletory capacity insofar as they are not inconsistent herewith. chanrobles virtual law library

Sec. 23. Effectivity. — This revised Rule on Summary Procedure shall be

effective on November 15, 1991. chanrob les virtual l