Geronilla, Althea Gwynne M.

Criminal Aspect: Rule 110, Sec. 1(b), last paragraph – Effect of institution of the criminal action
on the prescriptive period
Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr.

July 3, 1992 G.R. No. 102342 J. Cruz

RECIT READY SYNOPSIS

• Relevant Fact:
o Petitioner was charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor’s permit
in Rodriquez, Rizal.
o Petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that the crim had prescribed.
• Relevant Issue: Whether the prescription period ceased to run when the case was filed with the
prosecutor’s office.
• Ruling: As provided in the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, only the filing of
an Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is
involved in an ordinance.
Relevant Provisions / Concept / Doctrines
• Computation of the prescriptive period, Art. 91, RPC - “ . . . shall be interrupted by filing of 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.”
FACTS
• Petitioner Zaldivia is charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor's permit
in the municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal.
• She moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed but it was denied.
She appealed to the RTC and denial was sustained by the respondent judge.
• Petitioner filed for a petition for review on certiorari arguing that the case filed against her is govern
by the provisions on the Rules of Summary Procedure. She contends that criminal cases like
violations of municipal or city ordinances does not require preliminary investigation and shall be
filed directly to the court and not in the Prosecutor’s office.
• She also invoked Act No. 3226 “An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized
by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run”.
• Concluding that the case should have been dismissed since the case against her was being filed
in court way beyond the 2-month statutory period.
• The prosecution contends that when the case was filed on the Prosecutor’s office it suspends the
prescriptive period.
ISSUE
Whether the prescription of period ceased to run when the case was filed with the prosecutor’s office.
RULING
• As a general rule, the filing of the case in the prosecutor’s office is sufficient to interrupt the running
of the prescriptive period except when the case is covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
• If it is any crime, you file it in the fiscal’s office; the running of the prescriptive period is interrupted.
But in the case at bar having only a penalty of arresto menor, it therefore falls under the provisions
of the Rules on Summary Procedure.
• If it is covered by the Summary Rules, the period continues. It must be the filing of the case in court
which will interrupt the period from running.
RATIO
• The conclusion is that the prescriptive period for the crime imputed to the petitioner commenced
from its alleged commission on May 11, 1990, and ended two months thereafter, on July 11, 1990,
in accordance with Section 1 of Act No. 3326. It was not interrupted by the filing of the complaint
with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor on May 30, 1990, as this was not a judicial proceeding.
The judicial proceeding that could have interrupted the period was the filing of the information with
the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez, but this was done only on October 2, 1990, after the crime
had already prescribed.