LUZ ZALDAVIA VS.

REYES to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for

 Court is asked to determine the applicable law reasons not constituting jeopardy.
specifying the prescriptive period for violations of Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, special acts shall be
municipal ordinances. acts defining and penalizing violations of law not
 Luz Zaldavia is charged with quarrying for included in the Penal Code.
commercial purposes without a mayor's permit  As the information was filed way beyond the 2-
in violation of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1988, of month statutory period from the date of the alleged
Rodriguez, Rizal. commission of the offense, the charge against her
 May 11, 1990 – Offense was allegedly committed should have been dismissed on the ground of
 May 30, 1990 – Referral-complaint of the police was prescription.
received by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
 October 1990 – Information was filed with MTC Prosecution’s Argument:
Rodriguez  Prescriptive period was suspended upon the filing of
 Luz moved to quash the information on the the complaint against her with the Office of the
ground that the crime had prescribed. Denied. Provincial Prosecutor.
 Luz appealed to RTC Rizal. Denied.  Invoked Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure:
Luz Zaldavia’s Arguments: Sec. 1. How Instituted — For offenses not
 The charge against her is governed by the following subject to the rule on summary procedure in
provisions of the Rule on Summary Procedure: special cases, the institution of criminal action
Sec. 1. Scope — This rule shall govern the procedure in shall be as follows:
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and a. For offenses falling under the jurisdiction
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases: of the Regional Trial Court, by filing the
B. Criminal Cases: complaint with the appropriate officer for
1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and the purpose of conducting the requisite
regulations; preliminary investigation therein;
2. Violations of rental law; b. For offenses falling under the jurisdiction
3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances; of the Municipal Trial Courts and
4. All other criminal cases where the penalty Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, by filing
prescribed by law for the offenses charged the complaint directly with the said
does not exceed six months imprisonment, courts, or a complaint with the fiscal's
or a fine of one thousand pesos office. However, in Metropolitan Manila
(P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other and other chartered cities, the complaint
imposable penalties, accessory or may be filed only with the office of the
otherwise, or of the civil liability arising fiscal.
therefrom In all cases such institution interrupts the period
Sec. 9. How commenced. — The prosecution of of prescription of the offense charged.
criminal cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall  The filing of the complaint with the Office of the
be either by complaint or by information filed directly in Provincial Prosecutor comes under the phrase "such
court without need of a prior preliminary examination or institution" and that the phrase "in all cases" applies
preliminary investigation: Provided, however, That in to all cases, without distinction, including those
Metropolitan Manila and chartered cities, such cases falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure.
shall be commenced only by information; Provided,  Said paragraph was an adoption of the following
further, That when the offense cannot be prosecuted  de dictum in Francisco v. CA (May 30, 1983)
oficio,  the corresponding complaint shall be signed and The true doctrine is, and should be, the one
sworn to before the fiscal by the offended party. established by the decisions holding that the
filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court,
 Luz also invokes Act 3326, as amended even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary
Sec. 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless examination or investigation, should, and does,
provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal
following rules: . . . Violations penalized by municipal responsibility, even if the court where the
ordinances shall prescribe after two months. complaint or information is filed cannot try the
case on its merits.
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of Several reasons buttress this conclusion:
the commission of the violation of the law, and if the 1. The text of Article 91 of RPC, in declaring
same be not known at the time, from the discovery that the period of prescription "shall be
thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
investigation and punishment. information" without distinguishing whether
the complaint is filed in the court for
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings preliminary examination or investigation
are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin merely, or for action on the merits.
 2. Even if the court where the complaint or investigation." Both parties agree that this provision
information is filed may only proceed to does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting a
investigate the case, its actuations already preliminary investigation if he wants to. However, the
represent the initial step of the proceedings case shall be deemed commenced only when it is
against the offender. filed in court, whether or not the prosecution decides
3. It is unjust to deprive the injured party of the to conduct a preliminary investigation. This means
right to obtain vindication on account of that the running of the prescriptive period shall
delays that are not under his control. All that be halted on the date the case is actually filed in
the victim of the offense may do on his part court and not on any date before that.
to initiate the prosecution is to file the  This interpretation is in consonance with the afore-
requisite complaint. quoted Act 3326 which says that the period of
prescription shall be suspended "when
 Francisco vs CA - May 30, 1983 proceedings are instituted against the guilty
 Rule on Summary Procedure – August 1, 1983 party." Proceedings here refer to "judicial
 Section 1 of Rule 110 incorporated with the revision proceedings," contrary to the submission of
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure - January 1, Respondents that they include administrative
1985 proceedings. His contention is that we must not
Its last paragraph added on October 1, 1988 distinguish as the law does not distinguish. As a
 Section 1 of Rule 110 begins with the phrase, "for matter of fact, it does.
offenses not subject to the rule on summary  At any rate, the Court feels that if there be a
procedure in special cases," which plainly signifies conflict between the Rule on Summary
that the section does not apply to offenses which are Procedure and Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules
subject to summary procedure. The phrase "in all on Criminal Procedure, Rule on Summary
cases" in the last paragraph obviously refers to the Procedure should prevail as the special law.
cases covered by the Section (offenses not  And if there be a conflict between Act 3326 and
governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure). This Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure,
interpretation conforms to the canon that words in a Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
statute should be read in relation to and not isolation must again yield because this Court, in the
from the rest of the measure, to discover the true exercise of its rule-making power, is not allowed to
legislative intent. "diminish, increase or modify substantive rights"
 As clearly provided in the Rule on Summary under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution.
Procedure that among the offenses it covers are Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right.
violations of municipal or city ordinances, it should  Francisco case is irrelevant as the offense
follow that the charge against Luz, which is for involved was grave oral defamation punishable
violation of a municipal ordinance of Rodriguez, under RPC with arresto mayor in max period
is governed by Rule on Summary Procedure and to prision correccional in min period.
not Section 1 of Rule 110.  Whereas the instant case is for violation of a
 Where paragraph (b) of the section does speak of municipal ordinance, for which the penalty
"offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the cannot exceed six months, and is thus covered
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Courts," the obvious reference is to Section 32(2) of  The Court realizes that in the above interpretation, a
B.P. No. 129, vesting in such courts exclusive crime may prescribe even if the complaint is filed
jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with seasonably with the prosecutor's office if,
imprisonment not exceeding 4 years and 2 months, intentionally or not, he delays the institution of the
or a fine of not more than P4,000, or both such fine necessary judicial proceedings until it is too late.
and imprisonment, regardless of other imposable However, that possibility should not justify a
accessory or other penalties, including the civil misreading of the applicable rules beyond their
liability arising from such offenses or predicated obvious intent as reasonably deduced from their
thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or plain language.
amount thereof; Provided, however, That in offenses
 Prescriptive period for the crime imputed to Luz
involving damage to property through criminal
commenced from its commission on May 11,
negligence they shall have exclusive original
1990, and ended two months thereafter, on July
jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not
11, 1990, in accordance with Section 1 of Act
exceed twenty thousand pesos.
3326.
 These offenses are not covered by the Rule on
 It was not interrupted by the filing of the
Summary Procedure.
complaint with the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor on May 30, 1990, as this was not a
RULING:
judicial proceeding.
 Under Section 9 of the Rule on Summary
 The judicial proceeding that could have interrupted
Procedure, "the complaint or information shall be
the period was the filing of the information with MTC
filed directly in court without need of a prior
Rodriguez, but this was done only on October 2,
preliminary examination or preliminary
1990, after the crime had already prescribed.
 interrupt the running of the prescriptive
period, as the law contemplates judicial, and
not administrative proceedings.
o Considering that from 1993 to 1998, more
than 4 years had already elapsed and no
information had as yet been filed against
Tongson, the violation of B 22 imputed to
PANAGUITON vs DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE him had already prescribed.
 1992, Rodrigo Cawili borrowed various sums of o Order of Chief State Prosecutor to refer the
money amounting to P1,979,459.00 from Luis matter to the NBI could no longer be
Panaguiton. sanctioned under Section 3, Rule 112 of the
 January 8, 1993, Cawili and Ramon Tongson, jointly Rules of Criminal Procedure because the
issued in favor of Luis 3 checks in payment of the initiative should come from Luis himself and
said loans. All 3 checks bore both their signatures. not the investigating prosecutor.
 March 18, 1993, checks were dishonored, either for o Also, ACP found that Tongson had no
insufficiency of funds or by the closure of the dealings with Luis.
account.  Luis appealed to DOJ. Dismissed as the offense
 Luis Panaguiton made formal demands to pay the had already prescribed pursuant to Act 3326.
sum but to no avail.  Luis filed a motion for reconsideration. DOJ ruled in
 August 24, 1995, Luis filed a complaint against his favor; the offense had not prescribed and
Cawili and Tongson BP 22 before QC that the filing of the complaint with the
Prosecutor's Office. prosecutor's office interrupted the running of the
 During the preliminary investigation, only Tongson prescriptive period citing Ingco v.
appeared and filed his counter-affidavit. Sandiganbayan.
o He was unjustly included as party-  July 8, 2003, City Prosecutor's Office filed an
respondent as Luis had lent money to Cawili information charging Tongson with 3 counts of
in his personal capacity. violation of BP 22.
o Cawili is not his business associate; in fact,  However, DOJ, ordered the withdrawal of the 3
he himself had filed several criminal cases Informations for violation of BP 22 against Tongson.
against Cawili for violation of BP 22. o Act 3326 applies to violations of special acts
o Denied that he had issued the bounced that do not provide for a prescriptive period
checks and pointed out that his signatures for the offenses thereunder.
on the said checks had been falsified. o Since BP 22, a special act, does not provide
 Luis Tongson presented several documents to prove for the prescription of the offense it defines
authenticity of signature and Tongson as Cawili’s and punishes, Act No. 3326 applies to it,
business associate. and not Art. 90 of RPC.
 City Prosecutor III Lara found probable cause o Also cited the case of Zaldivia v. Reyes, that
only against Cawili and dismissed the charges the proceedings referred to in Act 3326, as
against Tongson. amended, are judicial proceedings, and not
 Luis filed a partial appeal before DOJ even while the the one before the prosecutor's office.
case against Cawili was filed before the proper  Luis filed a petition for certiorari before CA.
court. Dismissed.
 Chief State Prosecutor Zuño directed QC City  DOJ states CA did not err.
Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation of the case o Filing of a complaint with the QC City
against Tongson finding that he had deliberately Prosecutor does not interrupt the running of
altered his signature in the pleadings. the prescriptive period for violation of BP 22.
 Tongson moved for reconsideration of the resolution. o Under BP 22, a special law which does not
Motion denied. provide for its own prescriptive period,
 March 15, 1999, Assistant City Prosecutor offenses prescribe in 4 years in accordance
dismissed the complaint against Tongson with Act No. 3326.
without referring the matter to the NBI per the
Chief State Prosecutor's resolution. Cawili and Tongson’s Argument:
o Case had already prescribed pursuant to Act  Violation of BP 22 has already prescribed per Act
3326, as amended, which provides that 3326; the long delay, attributable to Luis and the
violations penalized by BP 22 shall prescribe State, violated their constitutional right to speedy
after 4 years. disposition of cases.
o The 4-year period started on the date the
checks were dishonored, or 20 January SC RULING:
1993 and 18 March 1993. On the technical issues
o The filing of the complaint before the QC
Prosecutor on August 24, 1995 did not
 Luis points out that a deficiency in the verification the nature of a judicial proceeding which suspends
can be excused or dispensed with, the defect being the prescription of the offense.
neither jurisdictional nor always fatal.  In People v. Olarte, the filing of the complaint in the
 Indeed, the verification is merely a formal Municipal Court, even if it be merely for purposes of
requirement intended to secure an assurance that preliminary examination or investigation, interrupts
matters which are alleged are true and correct. the period of prescription of the criminal
 By attaching the pertinent verification to his motion responsibility, even if the court where the complaint
for reconsideration, Luis sufficiently complied with or information is filed cannot try the case on the
the verification requirement. merits. In addition, even if the court where the
complaint or information is filed may only proceed to
investigate the case, its actuations already represent
the initial step of the proceedings against the
On substantive issues offender, and hence, the prescriptive period should
 There is no question that Act No. 3326 is the law be interrupted.
applicable to offenses under special laws which do  In Ingco v. Sandiganbayan and Sanrio Company
not provide their own prescriptive periods. Limited v. Lim, which involved violations RA 3019
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, and RA 8293, both special laws, the prescriptive
unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings
accordance with the following rules: for preliminary investigation against the accused.
(b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment  In SEC vs. Interport Resources Corporation, the
for more than one month, but less than two years; investigation conducted by the SEC on violations of
the Revised Securities Act, a special law, is
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted
the commission of the violation of the law, and if the by DOJ in criminal cases, and thus interrupts the
same be not known at the time, from the discovery prescriptive period.
thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its  The discussion in Interport Resources:
investigation and punishment. While it may be observed that "judicial proceedings" in
Sec. 2 of Act 3326 appears before "investigation and
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings punishment" in the old law, with the subsequent change
are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin whereby the investigation of the charge for purposes of
to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons prosecution has become the exclusive function of the
not constituting jeopardy. executive branch, the term "proceedings" should now be
 Act 3326 applies to offenses under BP 22. It has the understood either executive or judicial in character:
penalty of imprisonment of not less than 30 days but executive when it involves the investigation phase and
not more than 1 year or by a fine, hence, under Act judicial when it refers to the trial and judgment stage.
3326, a violation of BP 22 prescribes in 4 years from  With this clarification, any kind of investigative
the commission of the offense or, if the same be not proceeding instituted against the guilty person which
known at the time, from the discovery thereof. may ultimately lead to his prosecution should be
Nevertheless, we cannot uphold the position that sufficient to toll prescription.
only the filing of a case in court can toll the running  Luis filed his complaint-affidavit on August 24, 1995,
of the prescriptive period. well within the 4-year prescriptive period. He timely
 Act 3326 was passed on December 4, 1926, when filed his appeals and his motions for reconsideration
preliminary investigation of criminal offenses was on the dismissal of the charges against Tongson. He
conducted by justices of the peace. Thus, "institution went through the proper channels within the
of judicial proceedings for its investigation and prescribed periods.
punishment," and the prevailing rule at the time was  However, from the time Luis filed his complaint-
that once a complaint is filed with the justice of the affidavit with the City Prosecutor (August 24,1995)
peace for preliminary investigation, the prescription up to the time the DOJ issued the assailed
of the offense is halted. resolution, an aggregate period of 9 years had
 The historical perspective on the application of Act elapsed.
3326 is illuminating. Act 3226 was approved on Dec  Clearly, the delay was beyond petitioner's control.
4, 1926 when the function of conducting the After all, he had already initiated the active
preliminary investigation of criminal offenses was prosecution of the case as early as 1995, only to
vested in the justices of the peace. Thus, the suffer setbacks because of DOJ's flip-flopping
prevailing rule at the time is that the prescription of resolutions and misapplication of Act 3326.
the offense is tolled once a complaint is filed with the  Aggrieved parties, especially those who do not sleep
justice of the peace for preliminary investigation on their rights and actively pursue their causes,
inasmuch as the filing of the complaint signifies the should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily
institution of the criminal proceedings against the because of circumstances beyond their control.
accused.  We rule and so hold that the offense has not yet
 In People v. Parao and Parao, the first step taken in prescribed. Luis's filing of his complaint-affidavit
the investigation or examination of offenses partakes
 before the City Prosecutor on August 24, 1995 acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
signified the commencement of the proceedings for imputable to him.
the prosecution of the accused and thus effectively  In this case, the offense of libel on December 21,
interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses, 1993 when petitioner circulated a letter containing
they had been charged under BP 22. malicious imputations against Srs. Helen and
 Moreover, since there is a definite finding of Bernadine. At this point, the period of prescription for
probable cause, with the debunking of the claim of the alleged crime had already started to run.
prescription there is no longer any impediment to the  The one-year period of prescription for the crime
filing of the information against petitioner. was interrupted on February 2, 1994 when Srs.
Helen and Bernadine filed a joint complaint-affidavit
for libel. At this point, the prescription period had
already run for 42 days.
 A preliminary investigation by City prosecutor was
thus conducted. Consequently, an information for
SR. FIDELIS ARAMBULO vs LAQUI libel was filed against Sr. Fidelis on May 18, 1994
 February 2, 1994, Sr. Helen and Sr. Bernadine filed before MTC Quezon City.
a joint complaint-affidavit for libel against Sr. Fidelis  Despite MTC having no jurisdiction over libel, they
before the QC City Prosecutor alleging that Sr. proceeded to conduct trial on the merits.
Fidelis circulated on December 21, 1993 a letter  Sr. Fidelis filed a Demurrer to Evidence dated
containing malicious imputations against them. September 18, 1996. MTC then ruled that it had no
 An information for libel was filed before QC MTC on jurisdiction over libel as the same falls under the
May 18, 1994. exclusive jurisdiction of RTC.
 Sr. Fidelis filed a Demurrer to Evidence.  Instead of dismissing the case outright, the MTC
 MTC ruled that it had no jurisdiction and ordered the ordered the forwarding of the case to RTC for further
case to be forwarded to RTC. proceedings.
 November 29, 1996, case was forwarded to RTC.  On the basis of a Motion to Dismiss by Sr. Fidelis,
 January 3, 1997, Sr. Fidelis filed a Motion to Dismiss Branch 215 of the RTC dismissed the case on the
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and prescription ground of lack of jurisdiction as the information
of the offense of Libel. against petitioner should have been re-filed anew.
 RTC dismissed the case but, stating that the  The court ruled that the crime had not yet prescribed
offense had not yet prescribed, ordered QC City and ordered the re-filling of the case.
Prosecutor to re-file the Information for Libel with  April 27, 1997, City Prosecutor re-filed the case with
RTC. the RTC.
 April 27, 1997, Information for Libel was re-filed with  Sr. Fidelies filed a motion to quash the information
RTC. but was denied.
 June 17, 1997, Sr. Fidelis filed a Motion to quash on  CA upheld the decision.
the ground of prescription. Denied.
 Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. Sr. Fidelis’ Arguments:
 Sr. Fidelis appealed to CA.  Prescription period for the crime commenced to run
o WON RTC committed grave abuse of again when the Assistant City Prosecutor
discretion or grossly erred in holding that the recommended the filing of the information for libel.
offense of libel in the instant case has not  Prescriptive period could have been interrupted
yet prescribed. again had the information been filed with the RTC,
 CA upheld that offense of libel had not yet the court with the proper jurisdiction to try the case
prescribed and consequently, dismissed the said for libel. Considering however that the case was filed
petition. before MTC, which under the law does not have
jurisdiction over the crime of libel, the period of
RULING: prescription continued to run its course.
 Under Article 90 of RPC, the crime of libel prescribes  When the information for libel was finally filed with
in 1 year: RTC, the crime had already prescribed and the State
Article 90. Prescription of crime - The crime of libel or can no longer pursue the case against her.
other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.
 The said prescriptive period is computed under NO. In the landmark case of People vs. Olarte, this
Article 91 of RPC Court speaking through Justice J.B.L. Reyes:
Article 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. - "The true doctrine is, and should be, the one
The period of prescription shall commence to run from established by the decisions holding that the
the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended filing of the complaint with the Municipal Court,
party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, examination or investigation, should, and does,
and shall proceed to run again when such proceedings interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal
terminate without the accused being convicted or responsibility, even if the court where the
 complaint or information is filed cannot try the against her and by the holding of trial on the merits.
case on the merits. As such, when the information for libel was filed with
Several reasons buttress this conclusion: MTC, the period of prescription for the crime was still
1. Article 91 of RPC, in declaring that the suspended.
period of prescription shall be  "It is unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to
interrupted by the filing of the complaint obtain vindication on account of delays that are not
or information without distinguishing under his control."
whether the complaint is filed in the  Srs. Helen and Bernadine were not remiss in their
court for preliminary examination or right to seek grievance they filed their complaint
investigation merely, or for action on the before the city prosecutor 42 days after the alleged
merits crime. It was the City Prosecutor that committed an
2. Even if the court where the complaint or error when it filed the complaint with MTC.
information is filed may only proceed to  The error was probably due to the confusion as to
investigate the case, its actuations the proper venue for the crime of libel brought about
already represent the initial step of the by the passage of RA 7691 which took effect on
proceedings against the offender. April 15, 1994.
3. Unjust to deprive the injured party the o Under Section 2, jurisdiction of MeTC, MTC,
right to obtain vindication on account of and MCTC was expanded to include all
delays that are not under his control. All offenses punishable with imprisonment not
that the victim of the offense may do on exceeding 6 years. However, libel, which is
his part to initiate the prosecution is to punishable by imprisonment ranging from 6
file the requisite complaint. months and 1 day to 4 year is not covered
 And it is no argument that Article 91 also expresses as the said law excludes from its coverage
that the interrupted prescription ‘shall commence to cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
run again when such proceedings terminate without RTC.
the accused being convicted or acquitted’, thereby o Under Article 360 of RPC, the information
indicating that the court in which the complaint or for libel should be filed with CFI, now the
information is filed must have the power to convict or RTC.
acquit the accused. Precisely, the trial on the merits o The confusion was cleared up when this
usually terminates in conviction or acquittal, not Court issued AO which categorically stated
otherwise. But it is in the court conducting a that "libel cases shall be tried by RTC
preliminary investigation where the proceedings may having jurisdiction over them to the
terminate without conviction or acquittal, if the court exclusion of the MeTC, MTC, MuTC, MCTC.
should discharge the accused because no prima  Evidently, MTC was not spared the confusion
facie case had been shown." brought about by RA 7691, as its dismissal of the
 In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, it broadened the case then pending before it was made only on
scope of Olarte by holding that the filing of the November 8, 1996 or more than 2 years after it had
complaint with the fiscal’s office also suspends the taken cognizance of the case. Notably, the dismissal
running of the prescriptive period. by MTC took place a mere 18 days after the
 It is clear from the Olarte case that the filing of the issuance of S.C. Administrative Order No. 104-96.
complaint or information for purposes of preliminary  The mistake of the City Prosecutor in filing the
investigation represents the initial step of the complaint and of the MTC in taking cognizance of
proceedings against the offender. This is one of the the case was thus understandable. The error was
reasons why such filing is deemed as having immediately rectified by said court upon realizing its
interrupted the period of prescription for the mistake when it ruled it was RTC which had the
prosecution of a crime. This period of prescription proper jurisdiction over the case.
commences to run again when the proceedings  This mistake should not operate to prejudice the
terminate without conviction or acquittal, "if the court interest of the state to prosecute criminal offenses
(or prosecutor) should discharge the accused and, more importantly, the right of the offended party
because no prima facie case has been shown." to obtain grievance.
 Sr. Fidelis’ first premise that the period of  In People vs. Galano,  it was only when the trial court
prescription commenced to run again when the dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction that
Prosecutor’s Office recommended the filing of a "the proceedings therein terminated without
criminal complaint against her is incorrect. conviction and acquittal and it was only then that the
 When the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of prescriptive period commenced to run again."
libel charges against her, the proceedings against  In People vs. Enrile, "the filing of the first indictments
her were not terminated, precisely because a prima suspended the running of the prescriptive period,
facie case for libel was found against her. Instead of and the prosecutions under the informations to be
terminating the proceedings against petitioner, the filed should be regarded as mere continuations of
resolution of the city prosecutor actually directed the the previous proceedings." At the very least, the
continuation of the proceedings against the Court ruled, "the filing of the first charges should be
petitioner by the filing of the appropriate information
 considered as having interrupted the prescriptive o Pursuant to Section 2 of Act 3326, as
period notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction of the amended, prescription shall be interrupted
military tribunal in which they were filed." when proceedings are instituted against the
 From these cases, it is clear that CA committed guilty person.
no reversible error in ruling that the offense of o In the case of Zaldivia vs. Reyes the Court
libel charged against Sr. Fidelis had not yet held that the proceedings referred to in
prescribed. Section 2 of Act 3326, as amended, are
 The period of prescription for the crime was 'judicial proceedings', which means the
interrupted when the complaint was lodged with the filing of the complaint or information with the
City Prosecutor and remained tolled pending the proper court. Otherwise stated, the running
termination of the case. RTC therefore correctly of the prescriptive period shall be stayed on
assumed jurisdiction over the case as the offense of the date the case is actually filed in court
libel for which she was being charged has not yet and not on any date before that.
prescribed.
Virginia’s Argument:
 According to OSG, while it admits that Act No. 3326,
(as amended by Act No. 3585 and further amended
by Act No. 3763), governs the period of prescription
PEOPLE vs PANGILINAN for violations of special laws, it is the institution of
 September 16, 1997, Virginia Malolos filed an criminal actions, whether filed with the court or
affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22 with the Office of the City Prosecutor, that
against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan with the QC City interrupts the period of prescription of the offense
Prosecutor. charged
 Pangilinan issued 9 checks with an aggregate  The filing of the complaint-affidavit by private
amount of P9,658,592.00 in favor of Virginia which respondent on 16 September 1997 with the Office of
were dishonored upon presentment for payment. the City Prosecutor of Quezon City effectively
 December 5, 1997, Pangilinan filed a civil case for interrupted the running of the prescriptive period
accounting before the RTC of Valenzuela City. of the BP Blg. 22 cases.
 Pangilinan then filed a "Petition to Suspend
Proceedings on the Ground of Prejudicial Question" Pangilinan’s Argument:
before QC City Prosecutor, citing the civil action she  Reiterates the ruling of the CA that the filing of the
filed with RTC Valenzuela. complaint before the City Prosecutor's Office did not
 March 2, 1998, Assistant City Prosecutor interrupt the running of the prescriptive period
recommended the suspension of the criminal considering that the offense charged is a violation of
proceedings pending the outcome of the civil action a special law.
 Virginia raised the matter before DOJ, which
Secretary of Justice reversed the resolution of the ISSUE:
QC City Prosecutor and ordered the filing of Whether the filing of the affidavit-complaint for estafa
Informations for violation of BP 22. However, the 7 and violation of BP Blg. 22 against respondent with the
other checks were dismissed. Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on 16
 Thus, 2 counts for violation of BP 22 were filed September 1997 interrupted the period of prescription of
against Pangilinan in MTC Quezon City. such offense. NO
 Pangilinan filed an "Omnibus Motion to Quash the
Information and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant RULING:
of Arrest" Act 3326 entitled "An Act to Establish Prescription for
o That her criminal liability has been Violations of Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and
extinguished by reason of prescription. to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin," is the law
o Presiding judge granted the motion applicable to BP 22 cases:
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts
 October 26, 2000, Virginia filed a notice of appeal to
shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts,
RTC, which reversed the Order of the MeTC
prescribe in accordance with the following rules:
 Pangilinan filed with SC a petition for review but SC (b) after four years for those punished by
referred the petition to CA for appropriate action. imprisonment for more than one month, but less
 CA dismissed criminal case as the violation of BP 22 than two years;
had already prescribed.
o BP 22 imputed to Pangilinan sometime in Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run
1995, pursuant to Section 1 of Act 3326, as from the day of the commission of the violation
amended, four years therefrom or until the of the law, and if the same be not known at the
latter part of 1999 to file her complaint. The time, from the discovery thereof and the
information were filed with the MeTC only institution of judicial proceedings for its
on 2000. investigation and punishment.
 The prescription shall be interrupted when  Since BP 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty
proceedings are instituted against the guilty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but
person, and shall begin to run again if the not more than one year, therefore, it prescribes in
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not four (4) years in accordance with Act No. 3326
constituting jeopardy.  There is no more distinction between cases
 Since BP 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty under the RPC and those covered by special
of imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not laws with respect to the interruption of the
more than 1 year, it therefor prescribes in 4 years. period of prescription.
 The running of the prescriptive period, however,  The commencement of the proceedings for the
should be tolled upon the institution of proceedings prosecution of the accused before the Office of the
against the guilty person. City Prosecutor effectively interrupted the
 In the case of People v. Olarte, Court ruled that the prescriptive period.
filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court even if it  It is unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to
be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or obtain vindication on account of delays that are not
investigation, interrupt the period of prescription under his control. The only thing the offended must
of the criminal responsibility, even if the court do to initiate the prosecution of the offender is to
cannot try the case on the merits. file... the requisite complaint.
 Pangilinan's contention that a different rule should
be applied to cases involving special laws is
deprived of merit. HERMINIO DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN
 There is no more distinction between cases Office of the Ombudsman filed 2 informations charging
under the RPC and those covered by special Disini in the Sandiganbayan with:
laws with respect to the interruption of the 1. Corruption of public officials, penalized under
period of prescription. Article 212 in relation to Article 210 of RPC; and
 The ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr. is not controlling 2. Violation of Section 4(a) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft
in special laws. and Corrupt Practices Act)
 In cases involving special laws, Court held that the
institution of proceedings for preliminary Criminal Case A – Corruption of Public Officials
investigation against the accused interrupts the  That from 1974 to February 1986, HERMINIO
period of prescription. DISINI, conspiring together and confederating with
 In Panaguiton, Jr. v. DOJ, the Court categorically the then President Marcos, willfully, unlawfully and
ruled that commencement of the proceedings for the feloniously offer, promise and give gifts and
prosecution of the accused before the City presents to said Ferdinand E. Marcos, consisting of
Prosecutor effectively interrupted the prescriptive 2.5 billion shares of stock in Vulcan Industrial and
period for the offenses they had been charged Mining Corporation and 4 billion shares of stock in
under BP 22. The Energy Corporation, and subcontracts to
Engineering and Construction Company of Asia,
Application to the case owned by Marcos, on the mechanical and electrical
 The factual finding of the CA that 1995 is the construction work on the Philippine Nuclear Power
reckoning date of the commencement of Plant Project at Morong, Bataan
presumption for violations of BP 22 being the  In consideration of accused Disini seeking and
period within which herein respondent was notified obtaining for Burns and Roe and Westinghouse
by private complainant of the fact of dishonor of the Electrical Corporation to do the engineering and
checks. The affidavit-complaints for the violations architectural design and to construct the Project
were filed against respondent on September 16, constitute the crime of corruption of public officials.
1997, but cases reached the MeTC only on
February 13, 2000 because respondent filed a civil Criminal Case B – RA No.3019
case followed by a petition for suspension of  HERMINIO DISINI, conspiring together and
proceedings on the ground of "prejudicial question” confederating with Pres. Marcos, willfully, unlawfully
 Clearly, it was respondent's own motion for the and criminally, in connection with the Philippine
suspension of the criminal proceedings, that caused Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) Project, request and
the filing in court of the 1997 initiated proceedings receive from Burns and Roe the total amount of $1M
only in 2000. and also from Westinghouse Electric Corporation
 The instant petition is GRANTED. Decision of the total amount of $17M, in consideration of accused
Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET DISINI securing and obtaining the contract for the
ASIDE. The Department of Justice is ORDERED to said Burns and Roe and Westinghouse to do the
re-file the informations for violation of BP Blg. 22 engineering and architectural design, and construct
against the respondent. the said PROJECT
 Requested and received subcontracts for Power
Principles Contractors, Inc. owned by accused DISINI and
Engineering and Construction Company of Asia,
owned by Ferdinand E. Marcos
 was approved on March 16, 1982. It could not
be given retroactive effect for not being
 August 2, 2004, Disini filed a motion to quash favorable to the accused.
alleging that the criminal actions had been  1974 to February 1986 is the time of the
extinguished by prescription, and that the commission of the crime charged for Disini, thus,
informations did not conform to the prescribed form. applicable prescriptive period is 10 years
 September 16, 2004, Disini voluntarily submitted  As to offenses punishable by RA 3019, Section
himself for arraignment action on his motion for 2 of RA 3326 states that Prescription shall
permission to travel abroad in the Sandiganbayan begin to run from the day of the commission of
o Pleaded not guilty to both informations the violation of the law, and if the same be not
 January 17, 2005, the Sandiganbayan denied the known at the time, from the discovery thereof
motion to quash. and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
 Disini moved for the reconsideration but the investigation and punishment.
Sandiganbayan again denied his motion.  The prescription shall be interrupted when
proceedings are instituted against the guilty
ISSUES: person, and shall begin to run again if the
1. Respondent Court acted with such grave abuse of proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
discretion when it effectively ignored, disregarded, constituting double jeopardy.
and denied Disini’s constitutional and statutory right According to the ruling on the issue of prescription in
to prescription. By merely assuming the presence of Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on
glaringly absent elements in the offenses charged to Behest Loans v. Desierto
uphold the 'sufficiency' of the informations in both  Generally, the prescriptive period shall
criminal cases, the respondent court demonstrated commence to run on the day the crime is
its prejudgment over the subject cases and acted committed. That an aggrieved person "entitled to
with grave abuse of its discretion. an action has no knowledge of his right to sue or
2. Respondent Court acted with grave abuse of of the facts out of which his right arises," does
discretion in refusing to quash the informations not prevent the running of the prescriptive
despite their utter failure to comply with the period.
prescribed form, thus effectively denying the  An exception to this rule is the "blameless
accused his constitutional and statutory right to be ignorance" doctrine, incorporated in Section 2
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation of Act No. 3326. Under this doctrine, "the statute
against him of limitations runs only upon discovery of the fact
of the invasion of a right which will support a
RULING: cause of action. In other words, the courts would
The offenses charged in the informations have not decline to apply the statute of limitations where
yet prescribed the plaintiff does not know or has no
In resolving the issue of prescription, the following must reasonable means of knowing the existence
be considered, namely: of a cause of action.
1. Period of prescription for the offense charged; Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded to hold here that
2. Time when the period of prescription starts to the prescriptive period began to run from 1974, the time
run; and when the contracts for the PNPP Project were awarded
3. Time when the prescriptive period is interrupted. to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse.

The crime of corruption of public officials charged in Before the discovery, the PNPPP contracts, which
Criminal Case A is punished under Art. 212 of RPC. partook of a public character, enjoyed the presumption
Conformably with Article 90 of RPC, period of of their execution having been regularly done in the
prescription for this specie of corruption of public officials course of official functions. Considering during the
charged against Disini is 15 years. Marcos regime, no person would have dared to assail
 For crimes punishable by the RPC, Article 91 the legality of the transactions, it would be
thereof provides that prescription starts to run unreasonable to expect that the discovery of the
from the day on which the crime is unlawful transactions was possible prior to 1986.
discovered by the offended party, the
authorities, or their agents. The unlawful acts or transactions were discovered only
through the PCGG's exhaustive investigation,
As for Criminal Case B, charged with a violation of resulting in the establishment of a prima facie case
Section 4(a) of RA 3019. By express provision of sufficient for the PCGG to institute Civil Case against
Section 11 of RA 3019, as amended by BP 195, it shall Disini.
prescribe in 15 years. Prior to the amendment, the
prescriptive period was only 10 years. The criminal complaints were filed and their records
 In People v. Pacificador, prescriptive period of transmitted by the PCGG to Ombudsman on April 8,
15 years would not apply to crimes committed 1991 for the conduct the preliminary investigation
prior to the effectivity of the amendment which
In accordance with Article 91 of the RPC, the filing of the placed under circumstances that would make
criminal complaints in the Office of the Ombudsman him liable for direct bribery.
effectively interrupted the running of the period of
prescription. Elements of the offense under Section 4(a) RA 3019
are:
The prevailing rule is, therefore, that irrespective of 1. That the offender has family or close personal
whether the offense charged is punishable by the relation with a public official;
Revised Penal Code or by a special law, it is the filing of 2. That he capitalizes or exploits or takes
the complaint or information in the office of the public advantage of such family or close personal
prosecutor for purposes of the preliminary investigation relation by directly or indirectly requesting or
that interrupts the period of prescription. receiving any present, gift, material or pecuniary
advantage from any person having some
Consequently, prescription did not yet set in because business, transaction, application, request, or
only five years elapsed from 1986, the time of the contract with the government;
discovery of the offenses charged, up to April 1991, the 3. That the public official with whom the offender
time of the filing of the criminal complaints in the Office has family or close personal relation has to
of the Ombudsman. intervene in the business transaction,
application, request, or contract with the
government.
The Informations were sufficient in form and
substance
A complaint or information must state every single fact
necessary to constitute the offense charged; otherwise, The allegations in the information would establish that:
a motion to dismiss or to quash on the ground that the 1. Disini, being the husband of Paciencia Escolin-
complaint or information charges no offense may be Disini, the first cousin of First Lady Imelda
properly sustained. Romualdez-Marcos, and at the same time the
family physician of the Marcoses, had close
The informations in Criminal Case have sufficiently personal relations and intimacy with and free
complied with the requirements of Section 6, Rule 110 access to President Marcos, a public official;
of the Rules of Court 2. Disini, taking advantage of such family and close
Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or personal relations, requested and
information. A complaint or information is received$1,000,000.00 from Burns & Roe and
sufficient if it states the name of the accused; $17,000,000.00 from Westinghouse, the entities
the designation of the offense given by the then having business, transaction, and
statute; the acts or omissions complained of as application with the Government in connection
constituting the offense; the name of the with the PNPPP;
offended party; the approximate date of the 3. President Marcos, the public officer with whom
commission of the offense; and the place where Disini had family or close personal relations,
the offense was committed. intervened to secure and obtain for Burns & Roe
When the offense is committed by more than the engineering and architectural contract, and
one person, all of them shall be included in the for Westinghouse the construction of the
complaint or information. PNPPP.

The elements of corruption of public officials under WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for
Article 212 of RPC are: certiorari; AFFIRMS the resolutions by the
1. That the offender makes offers or promises, or Sandiganbayan... and DIRECTS... petitioner to pay the
gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and costs of suit.
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts
or presents are given to a public officer under Principles:
circumstances that will make the public officer The prevailing rule is, therefore, that irrespective of
liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery. whether the offense charged is punishable by the
Revised Penal Code or by a special law, it is the filing of
The allegations in the information for corruption of public the complaint or information in the office of the public
officials stated that: prosecutor for purposes of the preliminary investigation
1. Disini made an offer and promise, and gave gifts that interrupts the period of prescription.
to President Marcos, a public officer; and
2. in consideration of the offers, promises and gifts, A complaint or information must state every single fact
President Marcos, in causing the award of the necessary to constitute the offense charged; otherwise,
contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse by a motion to dismiss or to quash on the ground that the
taking advantage of his position and in complaint or information charges no offense may be
committing said act in relation to his office, was properly sustained.
  Section 21 of RA 10175 vests the RTC with
WILBERT TOLENTINO vs. PEOPLE, EVA ROSE PUA, jurisdiction without any qualifcation as to the place
JUDGE MARIA LUISA LESLE, RTC where the same should be filed.
This is an offshoot case in which the Court, First Section 21. Jurisdiction. — RTC shall have jurisdiction
Division, issued a Resolution dated Aug 6, 2018 that over any violation of the provisions of this Act including
resolves to dismiss the petition for certiorari with prayer any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless
for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order for of the place of commission.
the ff reasons:
1. Failure to state the date of receipt of the
Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was
assailed Order dated March 19, 2018 as
committed within the Philippines or committed with the
required by Sec. 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of
Court; and use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in
2. Failure to sufficiently show that the RTC gravely the country, or when by such commission any damage is
abused its discretion in rendering the Orders caused to a natural or juridical person who, at the time
dated March 19, 2018 and June 18, 2018 in the offense was committed, was in the Philippines.
Criminal Case No. R-QZN-17-14518-CR.
 Tolentino claims that the assailed Orders violate  Given that there is no qualification as to where a
Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution for criminal action for libel in relation to RA 10175 must
failing to state clearly and distinctly the facts and law be filed, the filing of the Information before the RTC
on which the assailed Orders are based. of Quezon City, where Eva Rose Pua resides, is
 Further, he cited NICOS Industrial Corporation v proper.
Court of Appeals, which reiterated the time-honored  This is in accordance with Section 2, Rule 4 of the
principle that "the constitutional provision does not Rules of Court, which provides that "[a]ll other
apply to interlocutory orders" such as the RTC's actions may be commenced and tried where the
March 19, 2018 Order denying petitioner's motion to plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs reside, or
quash "because the provision 'refers only to where the defendant or any of the principal
decisions on the merits and not to orders of the trial defendants reside, or in the case of a nonresident
court resolving incidental matters.” defendant where he may be found, at the election of
the plaintiff.
ISSUES:  The Court resolves to AFFIRM the Orders dated
1. WON the action to file a petition for cyberlibel March 19, 2018 and June 18, 2018 of the Regional
has prescribed. NO Trial Court, Branch 90, Quezon City.
2. WON RTC has jurisdiction over cyberlibel. YES

DECISION:
First Issue
 Anent Tolentino's claim that the action has
prescribed, although RA 10175, or the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012, does not categorically state
the prescriptive period for such action, the new
prescriptive period for the crime of libel in relation to
RA No. 10175 can be derived from the penalty
imposed on the said crime.
 Section 6 of RA 10175 provides that the "penalty to
be imposed shall be 1 degree higher than that
provided for by the RPC as amended, and special
laws, as the case may be."
 As such, the former penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods is increased to
prision correccional in its maximum period to prision
mayor in its minimum period. The new penalty,
therefore, becomes afflictive, following Section 25 of
the RPC.
 Corollarily, following Article 90 of RPC, the crime of
libel in relation to RA 10175 now prescribes in 15
years.
 Eva Rose Pua's filing of the complaint on August 8,
2017 against Tolentino’s Facebook post dated April
29, 2015 was well within the prescriptive period for
libel in relation to RA 10175.

Second Issue