CASE TITLE: Emiliano Francisco v.

Court of Appeals
Petitioner: Gabriel Ablola (Dr. Emiliano A. Francisco)
Respondent: Jasmine Molon (Solicitor General)
HOST: We will now move on to the next case; the case of Emiliano A. Francisco vs. Court of Appeals. In
this case, on Feb 1966, Dr. Angeles filed a case for intriguing against honor allegedly committed on Dec
1965 by Dr. Francisco & Atty. Bernardino. Then, on May 1966, the Provincial Fiscal filed an info against
the two w/ the CFI for grave oral defamation. Lastly, on 1973, The TC convicted the two of grave oral
defamation. On appeal, CA modified said decision, finding the accused guilty of simple slander instead.
HOST: Dr. Francisco, ano po ba ng ipinag-lalaban natin?
PETITIONER: Dr. Francisco, argues that since the CA found that the offense committed was the lesser
offense of simple slander, which under Art. 90 of the RPC, prescribes in 2 mos., the CA should have
dismissed the case. Also, he claims that the CA should have acquitted him on ground that the said crime
had prescribed as per evidence presented, the said remarks were done on Dec 1965, while the info
charged against him was filed more than 4 mos later.
HOST: I see. (adlib). Also, while the case was pending, Atty. Harry Bernardino one of the petitioners
herein died, hence in the resolution of April 10, 1979 the case was dismissed insofar as he is concerned.
Is that correct, Dr. Francisco?
PETITIONER: Yes. (adlib)
HOST: (adlib). Now, we would like to call on the Solicitor General to hear their contention. Please give
her a warm of applause.
(APPLAUSE)
HOST: Good Evening SolGen. Now, our petitioner here, Dr. Francisco gave his contentions. How do you
argue with his statement?
RESPONDENT: The SolGen contends that in determining the prescriptive period, what should be
considered is the nature of the offense charged in the info, not the crime committed by the accused as
found by the CA. Since the prescription for grave oral defamation is 6mos, the crime has not prescribed
yet when the info was filed. Also, he argues that the filing of the complaint in the Fiscal's office
interrupts the period of prescription.
HOST: Alright, maraming salamat Solicitor General. Ngayon para sa ating mga viewers ngayon, sa kasong
ito, meron itong dalawang issue tungkol sa JUDGMENT. Una, WON the crime found by the CA has
prescribed? At pangalawa, WON the filing of a complaint in the Fiscal's office interrupts the prescription
of an offense? Ano po masasabi ng ating Resident Lawyers?
RESIDENT LAWYERS: Sa unang issue, Yes. An accused cant be convicted for the lesser offense
necessarily included in the crime charged if at the time of the filing of the info, the lesser offense has
already prescribed. To hold otherwise would be to sanction a circumvention of the law on prescription
by the simple expedient of accusing the defendant of the graver offense.

RESIDENT LAWYERS: Sinasabi sa batas, "as a general rule, one indicted for an offense not barred by
limitation, but convicted of a lesser included offense which is so barred, is entitled to discharge",
mayroon pang sinasabi na, "It frequently happens that a change of felony includes an offense of a lower
grade with a different period of limitation so that, while the felony is not barred, the statute has ran as
to the lesser offense. In this situation, the rule is that if the statute has not run against the felony, while
the lesser offense is barred. The bar cannot be evaded by the defendant for the felony and convicting
him of the lesser offense."
RESIDENT LAWYERS: Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "the period of prescription shall
commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities.
or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and 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."
RESIDENT LAWYERS: Sa pangalawang issue naman, Yes. Prescription is interrupted with the filing of the
case even if the court is w/out jurisdiction, even if it be merely for purposes of prelim examination or
investigation. Thus, the filing of the complaint in the Fiscal's office interrupts the period of prescription.
RESIDENT LAWYERS: We cannot see our way clear on how Francisco's questioned statements could be
branded as libelous. To stigmatize them as libelous would be a dangerous precedent whereby a mere
criticism on the actuation of another will generate criminal liability for slander. His alleged defamatory
remarks may be likened to a criticism of a lawyer's or Judge's erroneous handling of the case.
RESIDENT LAWYERS: It may be mentioned here that in the brief of the Solicitor General, the statements
quoted and stigmatized as defamatory are those only of accused Bernardino. That latter's statements
are what the Solicitor General considered as "strong words that are evidently serious and damaging."
Nothing has been said by the Solicitor General regarding the statements uttered by Francisco.
Nonetheless, the Solicitor General would like to hold Francisco liable by the utterances of Bernardino on
the ground of conspiracy. Assuming that Bernardino's statement is libelous, Francisco cannot be held
liable for the same. Neither the lower court nor the Court of Appeals found that they conspired with
each other to commit the alleged crane. This is so because no evidence was offered to show that there
was prior consultation on what each would say. The fact alone that they were together when those
words were uttered is not proof that there was conspiracy to utter those words. Clearly, each accused
spoke spontaneously and individually.
RESIDENT LAWYERS: Conspiracy being of a very far-reaching effect, the degree of proof required for
establishing it must be the same as that required to support a finding of guilt for the crime itself which
must be upon proof beyond reasonable doubt.
RESIDENT LAWYERS: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused Emiliano Francisco is hereby
(Moment of silence for suspense.) ACQUITTED.