Scribd
Upload
71 views

Crim Pro Rule 110

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the filing of an affidavit-complaint against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan for estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22 with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on September 16, 1997 interrupted the four-year period of prescription for such offenses. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the offenses had prescribed, citing jurisprudence that the filing of a complaint with a fiscal's office or municipal court suspends the running of the prescriptive period, even if only for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation. Pangilinan was thus not shielded from liability by prescription.

Uploaded by

ara morales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
71 views

Crim Pro Rule 110

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the filing of an affidavit-complaint against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan for estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22 with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on September 16, 1997 interrupted the four-year period of prescription for such offenses. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the offenses had prescribed, citing jurisprudence that the filing of a complaint with a fiscal's office or municipal court suspends the running of the prescriptive period, even if only for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation. Pangilinan was thus not shielded from liability by prescription.

Uploaded by

ara morales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Rule 110

PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

(4) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MA. THERESA PANGILINAN


G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012

FACTS:
The affidavit-complaints for the violations were filed against respondent (Ma. Theresa
Pangilinan) on 16 September 1997. The cases reached the MeTC of Quezon City only
on 13 February 2000 because in the meanwhile, respondent filed a civil case for
accounting followed by a petition before the City Prosecutor for suspension of
proceedings on the ground of "prejudicial question". The matter was raised before the
Secretary of Justice after the City Prosecutor approved the petition to suspend
proceedings. It was only after the Secretary of Justice so ordered that the informations
for the violation of BP Blg. 22 were filed with the MeTC of Quezon City.

ISSUE: Whether the filing of the affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22
against respondent with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on 16 September
1997 interrupted the period of prescription of such offense.

RULING: CA reversively erred in ruling that the offense committed by respondent had
already prescribed. Indeed, Act No. 3326 entitled "An Act to Establish Prescription for
Violations of Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription
Shall Begin," as amended, is the law applicable to BP Blg. 22 cases. Appositely, the law
reads:

SECTION 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such
acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) xxx; (b) after four years for those
punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) xxx.

SECTION 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation
of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the
institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.

The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
constituting jeopardy.

Since BP Blg. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than
thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by a fine for its violation, it therefor
prescribes in four (4) years. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should be
tolled upon the institution of proceedings against the guilty person.

In the old but oft-cited case of People v. Olarte,16 this Court ruled that the filing of the
complaint in the Municipal Court even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary
examination or investigation, should, and thus, interrupt the period of prescription of the
criminal responsibility, even if the court where the complaint or information is filed cannot
try the case on the merits. This ruling was broadened by the Court in the case of
Francisco, et.al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al.17 when it held that the filing of the complaint
with the Fiscal’s Office also suspends the running of the prescriptive period of a criminal
offense.

You might also like