CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS V. LIDUA, SR., G.R. NO. 169588, 7 OCTOBER 2013
JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS V. LIDUA, SR.,
G.R. NO. 169588, 7 OCTOBER 2013,
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
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.
FACTS
On October
2, 2003, two criminal Informations for violation of City Ordinance 003-2000 were
filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City dated July 25, 2003.
The Motion to Quash and/or Manifestation sought the quashal of the two
Informations on the following grounds: extinguishment of criminal action or
liability due to prescription; failure of the Information to state facts that
charged an offense; and the imposition of charges on respondents with more than
one offense. Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio
City, Branch 3, granted the accused’s Motion to Quash and dismissed the cases.
ISSUE
Whether filling of the
criminal information in the prosecutor’s office suspended the prescription
period.
RULING
NO.
The court ruled 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. In Romualdez v. Hon. Marcelo, 470 SCRA 754 (2005), this Court defined the
parameters of prescription: [I]n 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. With
regard to the period of prescription, it is now without question that it is two
months for the offense charged under City Ordinance 003-2000.
Here, the
court ruled that 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 conduct of the preliminary
investigation, the original charge of Robbery, and the subsequent finding of
the violation of the ordinance did not alter the period within which to file
the Information. Respondents were correct in arguing that the petitioner only
had two months from the discovery and commission of the offense before it
prescribed within which to file the Information with the Municipal Trial Court.