Republic of the Philippines

5th Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Branch __, Naga City

People of the Philippines, Crim. Case No. ______

Plaintiff, For: Slight Oral Defamation

-VS-
Juan dela Cruz,
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

FORMAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

With MOTION TO QUASH
(and to Suspend Arraignment Pending Resolution of the Motion)

The undersigned formally enters his appearance as Counsel for

the accused and unto this Honorable Court respectfully avers:

1.0 TIMELINESS

1.1 This Motion to Quash is timely filed before the accused enters
his plea1 to the Amended Information.

2.0 LEGAL & FACTUAL BASIS

2.1 The accused may move to quash the Information when the
criminal action or liability has already been extinguished.2

2.2 Criminal liability is totally extinguished by prescription of the

crime.3

1
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Section 1
2
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Section 3(g)
3
Revised Penal Code, Article 89.5
Appearance & Motion [Crim. Case No. ___________] |Page 2 of 8

The Rule on the Computation and

Interruption of the Period of Prescription of
criminal offenses

2.3 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.4 For offenses in general, the period is
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.5

2.4 For offenses not covered by the Rule of Summary Procedure, it is

settled in jurisprudence that the period of prescription is
interrupted when a complaint is filed at the prosecutor’s office
for preliminary investigation even before the Information is filed
in court.

2.5 However, for offenses covered by the Rules on Summary

Procedure, there have been flip-flopping rulings of the Supreme
Court. One view declares that the filing of the complaint before
the prosecutor’s office interrupts the period. The other view
declares that only the filing of Information in court interrupts the
period of prescription in cases covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure.

2.6 The seeming conflict arose from the fact that under Section 1
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, in Manila and other chartered
cities, the complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor
unless otherwise provided in their charters. On the other hand,
Section 11 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requires
that in Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities such cases shall
be commenced only by Information, except when the offense cannot be
prosecuted de oficio.

4
Revised Penal Code, Article 91, 1st part
5
Revised Penal Code, Article 91, 2nd part
Appearance & Motion [Crim. Case No. ___________] |Page 3 of 8

2.7 The Supreme Court set the initial precedent in Zaldivia vs.
Reyes6 way back in 1992 by declaring that under the Rules on
Summary Procedure, only the filing of Information in court tolls
the prescriptive period.

2.8 Subsequent rulings were issued discounting and reviving the

ruling in Zaldivia vs. Reyes depending on the circumstance of the
case.

2.9 The significance of these subsequent rulings was discussed by

the Supreme Court in 2012 in People vs. Pangilinan7:

“There is no more distinction between cases under the RPC and

those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of
the period of prescription. The ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes,
Jr.[18] is not controlling in special laws. In Llenes v.
Dicdican,[19] Ingco, et al. v. Sandiganbayan,[20] Brillante v.
CA,[21] and Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim,[22] cases involving
special laws, this Court held that the institution of
proceedings for preliminary investigation against the
accused interrupts the period of prescription. In Securities
and Exchange Commission v. Interport Resources Corporation,
et. al.,[23] 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.

In fact, in the case of Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice,[24]

which is in all fours with the instant case, this Court
categorically ruled that commencement of the proceedings for the
prosecution of the accused before the Office of the City Prosecutor

6
G.R. No. 102342, July 03, 1992
7
G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012
Appearance & Motion [Crim. Case No. ___________] |Page 4 of 8

effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses

they had been charged under BP Blg. 22.”

2.10 The above-cited ruling in People vs. Pangilinan declared that (1)
the ruling in Zaldivia vs. Reyes does not apply to offenses covered by
special laws AND (2) for cases covered by special laws the institution
of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused
interrupts the period of prescription.

2.11 From the ruling in People vs. Pangilinan it would somehow seem
that since there is no more distinction among cases under the
RPC and those covered by special laws with respect to the
interruption of the period of prescription, the rule in special
cases also becomes applicable to all cases under the RPC,
including those covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure for
a crime defined by the provisions of the RPC. However, in a
subsequent and now prevailing case, the Supreme Court decreed
a different rule for cases covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure.

2.12 In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Jadewell Parking Systems

Corporation vs. Judge Nidua8 that under Section 11 of the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, in Metropolitan Manila
and in Chartered Cities, cases covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure shall be commenced ONLY by Information. In the
Jadewell ruling, the offense involved is a violation of city
ordinance of the City of Baguio. Violation of city ordinances are
covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure specifically under
Section 1.B(3) thereof.

2.13 The Jadewell ruling reinstated and cited the ruling in Zaldivia vs.
Reyes 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.”

8
G.R. No. 169588, October 7, 2013
Appearance & Motion [Crim. Case No. ___________] |Page 5 of 8

2.14 Since a case covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure in

chartered cities can only be commenced by the filing of
Information, the Supreme Court declared in Jadewell Parking
Systems Corporation vs. Judge Nidua that:

“As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only

the filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive period
where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance. The
respondent judge was correct when he applied the rule in
Zaldivia v. Reyes.”

2.15 One may be tempted to assert that the ruling Jadewell Parking
Systems Corporation vs. Judge Nidua only applies to violations of
city ordinances. This possible assertion is untenable because it is
clear from the rest of the ruling that the reason why only the
filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive period in cases for
violation of city ordinance is the RULE that a violation of city
ordinance is one of the cases covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure where only the filing of an Information tolls the
prescriptive period. If this were not the rule for cases covered by
the Rules of Summary Procedure, there is no reason why the rule
is applicable for violation of city ordinances.

2.16 To dispel any doubt that the ruling in Jadewell Parking Systems
Corporation vs. Judge Nidua applies to all cases covered by the
Rules on Summary Procedure, the Supreme Court cited the
provision of the National Prosecutors Service Manual on how
the period of prescription is computed and 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 wit[h] the Office of the
Appearance & Motion [Crim. Case No. ___________] |Page 6 of 8

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.”

2.17 As quoted above, the current prevailing categorical rule is that

“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.”

2.18 The above-cited case of Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation vs.

Judge Nidua is the current and prevailing ruling on the issue of
the interruption of the prescription period not only for violations
of ordinances for all cases covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure. No subsequent ruling has been issued to reverse or
modify this rule.

2.19 The rule decreed by the Supreme Court in Jadewell Parking

Systems Corporation vs. Judge Nidua applies to the present case
because the charge against the accused is also covered by the
Rules on Summary Procedure and the offense was allegedly
committed in a chartered9 city of Naga City where a case covered
by the Rules on Summary procedure can be commenced only
through the filing of Information as provided under Section 11
of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.

9
Republic Act No. 305, Naga City Charter
Appearance & Motion [Crim. Case No. ___________] |Page 7 of 8

The charge of Slight Oral Defamation against

the accused is covered by the Rules on
Summary Procedure

2.20 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) are covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure10.

2.21 The present case for Slight Oral Defamation with an imposable
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos11 is
therefore covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure.

The Information was filed beyond the

prescription period of six (6) months for the
crime of Slight Oral Defamation

2.22 The charge of Slight Oral Defamation in the Amended Information

prescribes in six (6) months12.

2.23 The Amended Information in this case states that the alleged
offense was committed by the accused against the person of the
private offended party way back in September 28, 2015.

2.24 The original Information for Unjust Vexation, which is also

covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, was filed in court
on August 19, 2016, which is 10 months and 22 days after the
alleged commission of the offense.

2.25 The Amended Information for Slight Oral Defamation in this case
was filed in court on March 8, 2017, which is already 1 year, 5
months and 8 days after the alleged commission of the offense.

10
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, Section 1.B(4)
11
Revised Penal Code, Article 358, 2nd part
12
Revised Penal Code, Article 90, Par. 5
Appearance & Motion [Crim. Case No. ___________] |Page 8 of 8

2.26 Both the original Information and the Amended Information were
filed beyond the six (6) months13 prescriptive period for the
offense of Slight Oral Defamation.

2.27 Any criminal liability in connection with the charge of Slight Oral
Defamation on the Amended Information has already been
extinguished on the ground of Prescription.

3.0 PRAYER

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed before this

Honorable Court:

1. That the entry of appearance of the undersigned as counsel for

accused be duly noted on record;

2. That pleadings, orders and processes in this proceedings that are

intended for the accused be furnished to the undersigned
counsel.

3. That the arraignment of the accused be held in abeyance pending

resolution of the Motion to Quash.

4. That after due notice and hearing, the Information be quashed

on the ground that the offense has already prescribed.

The accused prays for any other reliefs equitable under the
premises.

September 7, 2020. Legazpi City for Naga City.

13
Revised Penal Code, Article 90, Par. 5