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.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147