SANRIO V LIM

based its action on Act 3326 which states:

Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts,
prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only
by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for
those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years;
(c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but
less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offense punished by
imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe after
twenty years; Provided, however, That all offenses against any law or part of law
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall prescribe after five years. Violations
penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months.

Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the
violation of the law, and if the same may not be 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. (emphasis supplied)

Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that will engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be
held for trial.34 Because a public prosecutor is the one conducting a preliminary investigation, he
determines the existence of probable cause.35 Consequently, the decision to file a criminal
information in court or to dismiss a complaint depends on his sound discretion.36

PEOPLE V PANGILINAN
the Court even ruled that investigations conducted by the Securities and
Exchange Commission for violations of the Revised Securities Act and the
Securities Regulations Code effectively interrupts the prescription period because it
is equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal
cases.

this Court categorically ruled that commencement of the proceedings for the
prosecution of the accused before the Office of the City Prosecutor effectively
interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses they had been charged under BP
Blg. 22. Aggrieved parties, especially those who do not sleep on their rights and
actively pursue their causes, should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily further
simply because of circumstances beyond their control, like the accuseds delaying
tactics or the delay and inefficiency of the investigating agencies.
As laid down in Olarte,[25] it is unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to
obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under his control. The only
thing the offended must do to initiate the prosecution of the offender is to file the
requisite complaint.

ZALDIVIA V REYES
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

A. Civil Cases:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(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
[Link] virtual law library chanrobles virtual law library
B. Criminal Cases:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations; chanrobles virtual law library
(2) Violations of the rental law; chanrobles virtual law library
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances; chanrobles virtual law library
(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 [Link] virtual law library chanrobles virtual law library
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 [Link] virtual law library

The Court feels that if there be a conflict between the Rule on Summary Procedure and Section 1 of Rule
110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the former should prevail as the special law. And if there be a
conflict between Act No. 3326 and Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the latter must again yield
because this Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, is not allowed to "diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights" under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution. Prescription in criminal cases is a
substantive right.

JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEM VS LUIDA

Moreover, the ruling of the Supreme Court in Zaldivia vs. Reyes cited in the assailed Resolution
does not apply in this case. The offense charged in Zaldivia is a violation of municipal ordinance in
which case, the complaint should have been filed directly in court as required by Section 9 of the old
Rules on Summary Procedure. On the other hand, Criminal Case Nos. 112934 and 112935 are for
violations of a city ordinance and as aforestated, "shall be commenced only by information.

Sec. 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
proceeding 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
This is because Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that, in Manila and in other chartered cities,
the Complaint shall be filed with the Office of the Prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their
charters.

In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following should be considered: (1)
the period of prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time the period of prescription starts to run;
and (3) the time the prescriptive period was interrupted

SEC. 20. How Period of Prescription Computed and Interrupted. - For an offense penalized under
the Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription commences to run from the day on which the
crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted:

a) by the filing of the complaint with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor; or with the
Office of the Ombudsman; or

b) by the filing of the complaint or information with the court even if it is merely for purposes
of preliminary examination or investigation, or even if the court where the complaint or
information is filed cannot try the case on its merits.

However, for an offense covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, the period of prescription is
interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in court.

For violation of a special law or ordinance, the period of prescription shall commence to run from the
day of the commission of the violation, and if the same is not known at the time, from the discovery
and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall
be interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in court and shall begin to run again if
the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy

PEOPLE VS CONJUANGCO
But the Court has already settled in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee
on Behest Loans v. Desierto[14] that Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution
applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, not to criminal cases
such as the complaint against respondents in OMB-0-90-2810. Thus, the
prosecution of offenses arising from, relating or incident to, or involving ill-gotten
wealth contemplated in Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution may be
barred by prescription.[15]

Notably, Section 11 of R.A. 3019 now provides that the offenses committed under
that law prescribes in 15 years. Prior to its amendment by Batas Pambansa (B.P.)
Blg. 195 on March 16, 1982, however, the prescriptive period for offenses
punishable under R.A. 3019 was only 10 years.[16] Since the acts complained of
were committed before the enactment of B.P. 195, the prescriptive period for such
acts is 10 years as provided in Section 11 of R.A. 3019, as originally enacted

the prescriptive period shall begin to run: first, from the day of the commission of
the violation of the law, if such commission is known; and second, from its
discovery, if not then known, and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment.[19]

METROPOLITAN BANK V REYNALDO

estafa is committed against the State, the private offended party may not waive or
extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the crime.
Novation not a mode of extinguishing

criminal liability for estafa; Criminal liability for

estafa not affected by compromise or novation of
contract.
novation is not one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the
extinguishment of criminal liability.

In a preliminary investigation, a public prosecutor determines whether a crime has been

committed and whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty thereof.[42]The
Secretary of Justice, however, may review or modify the resolution of the prosecutor.

Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that will engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial.[ Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide
latitude of discretion in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. By way of exception,
however, judicial review is allowed where respondent has clearly established that the
prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion that is, when he has exercised his
discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion
or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law

hus the law makes it a legal duty for prosecuting officers to file the charges against
whomsoever the evidence may show to be responsible for the offense. The proper
remedy under the circumstances where persons who ought to be charged were not
included in the complaint of the private complainant is definitely not to dismiss the
complaint but to include them in the information.

Truly, it is a matter of discretion on the part of the prosecutor to determine which persons
appear responsible for the commission of a crime. However, the moment he finds one to
be so liable it becomes his inescapable duty to charge him therewith and to prosecute him
for the same. In such a situation, the rule loses its discretionary character and becomes
mandatory.