People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662 granted.

Malolos filed a notice of appeal and the

RTC reversed the decision of the MeTC.
Crim Pro - Rule 110
According to the RTC, the offense has not yet
Facts: prescribed "considering the appropriate
complaint that started the proceedings having
Ma. Theresa Pangilinan, the respondent in this been filed with the Office of the Prosecutor on
instant case allegedly issued 9 checks with the 16 September 1997". Dissatisfied, Pangilinan
aggregate amount of P9,658,692 in favor of raised the matter to the Supreme Court for
Virginia Malolos. But, upon Malolos' review but it was referred to the CA "for
presentment of the said checks, they were appropriate action".
dishonored. So, on Sept. 16, 1997, Malolos filed
an affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of On October 26, 2001, the CA reversed the
BP 22 against Pangilinan. decision of the RTC and recognized Feb. 3, 2000
as the date of the filing of the informations.
On December 5, 1997, Pangilinan filed a
civil case for accounting, recovery of commercial Issue: Whether or not the filing of the affidavit-
documents, enforceability and effectivity of complaint for estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22
contract and specific performance against against respondent with the Office of the City
Malolos before the RTC of Valenzuela City. Later, Prosecutor of Quezon City on 16 September
Pangilinan also filed on December 10, 1997, a 1997 interrupted the period of prescription of
"Petition to Suspend Proceedings on the Ground such offense.
of Prejudicial Question".
Held. Yes. Under Section 1 of Act No. 3326 which
On March 2, 1998, Assistant City is the law applicable to B.P. 22 cases,
Prosecutor Ruben Catubay recommended “[v]iolations penalized by special acts shall,
Pangilinan's petition which was approved by the unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe
City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Malolos, then, in accordance with the following rules:… after
raised the matter before the DOJ. four years for those punished by imprisonment
for more than one month, but less than two
On January 5, 1999, Sec. of Justice Serafin years.” Under Section 2 of the same Act, “[t]he
Cuevas reversed the resolution of the City prescription shall be interrupted when
Prosecutor and ordered the filing of the proceedings are instituted against the guilty
informations for violation of BP 22 in connection person, and shall begin to run again if the
with Pangilinan's issuance of two checks, the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
charges involving the other checks were constituting jeopardy.
dismissed. So, two counts of violation for BP 22,
both dated Nov. 18, 1999, were filed against Since B.P. 22 is a special law that imposes a
Pangilinan on Feb. 3, 2000 before the MeTC of penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty
Quezon City. (30) days but not more than one year or by a fine
for its violation, it therefore prescribes in four (4)
On June 17, 2000, Pangilinan filed an years in accordance with the aforecited law. The
"Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information and running of the prescriptive period, however,
to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest” should be tolled upon the institution of
before MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon City, alleging proceedings against the guilty person.
that the criminal liability has been extinguished
by reason of prescription. The motion was
 October 2, 2003. Balajadia filed a motion to
quash.
The affidavit-complaints for the violations were
filed against respondent on 16 September 1997. STATEMENT OF THE CASE: The MTC granted the
The cases reached the MeTC of Quezon City only motion to quash and dismissed the case and
on 13 February 2000 because in the meanwhile, Jadewell‟s subsequent motion for
respondent filed a civil case for accounting reconsideration. Jadewell‟s petition for
followed by a petition before the City Prosecutor certiorari with RTC was likewise denied. Their
for suspension of proceedings on the ground of motion for reconsideration was also denied.
“prejudicial question”. The matter was raised
CONTENTION OF JADEWELL: They argued that
before the Secretary of Justice after the City
the filing of the criminal complaint with the
Prosecutor approved the petition to suspend
Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City, not
proceedings. It was only after the Secretary of
the filing of the criminal information before
Justice so ordered that the informations for the
Court, is the reckoning point in determining
violation of BP Blg. 22 were filed with the MeTC
whether or not the criminal action had
of Quezon City.
prescribed.
Clearly, it was respondent’s own motion for the
CONTENTION OF BALAJADIA: Respondents
suspension of the criminal proceedings, which
argued that Zaldivia v. Reyes held that the
motion she predicated on her civil case for
proceedings mentioned in Section 2 of Act No.
accounting, that caused the filing in court of the
3326, as amended, refer to judicial proceedings
1997 initiated proceedings only in 2000.
. Thus, the SC, in
JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION
represented by its manager and authorized Zaldivia , held that the filing of the Complaint
representative Norma Tan, petitioner, vs . HON. with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor was
JUDGE NELSON F. LIDUA , SR., Presiding Judge not a judicial proceeding. The prescriptive period
of The Municipal Trial Court Branch 3, Baguio commenced from the alleged date of the
City, BENEDICTO BALAJADIA, EDWIN ANG, commission of the crime on May 7, 2003 and
“JOHN DOES” and “PETER DOES, respondents. ended two months after on July 7, 2003.
G.R. No. 169588. October 7, 2013.
ISSUE: Whether the filing of the Complaint with
the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23, 2003
NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of a tolled the prescription period of the commission
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City of the offense
FACTS: Jadewell, pursuant to City Ordinance HELD: No. As provided in the Revised Rules on
003-2000, was authorized to render any motor Summary Procedure, only the filing of an
vehicle immobilized by placing its wheels in a Information tolls the prescriptive period where
clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked. Balajadia the crime charged is involved in an ordinance.
and the other respondents dismantled, took and The respondent judge was correct when he
carried away the clamps attached to the wheel applied the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes. In Zaldivia
of the vehicles, which took place on May 7, 2003. v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277 (1992), the violation of a
Jadewell filed a complaint for robbery against municipal ordinance in Rodriguez, Rizal also
the respondents with the Office of the City featured similar facts and issues with the present
Prosecutor on May 23, 2003. However, the case. In that case, the offense was committed on
Informations were filed with the MTC on May 11, 1990. The Complaint was received on
May 30, 1990, and the Information was filed with
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Rodriguez on
October 2, 1990.

When the representatives of the petitioner filed

the Complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor
of Baguio, the prescription period was running. It
continued to run until the filing of the
Information. They had two months to file the
Information and institute the judicial
proceedings by filing the Information with the
Municipal Trial Court. The failure of the
prosecutor to seasonably file the Information is
unfortunate as it resulted in the dismissal of the
case against the private respondents. It stands
that the doctrine of Zaldivia is applicable to
ordinances and their prescription period. It also
upholds the necessity of filing the Information in
court in order to toll the period. Zaldivia also has
this to say concerning the effects of its ruling:
The Court realizes that under the above
interpretation, a crime may prescribe even if the
complaint is filed seasonably with the
prosecutor‟s office if, intentionally or not, he
delays the institution of the necessary judicial
proceedings until it is too late. However, that
possibility should not justify a misreading of the
applicable rules beyond their obvious intent as
reasonably deduced from their plain language.
The remedy is not a distortion of the meaning of
the rules but a rewording thereof to prevent the
problem here sought to be corrected.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED