Zaldivia v Reyes G.R. No.

102342, July 3, 1992, 211

SCRA 277
Facts: A complaint was filed before the fiscal’s office constituting an offense in violation
of a city ordinance. The fiscal did not file the complaint before the court immediately but
instead filed it 3 months later. The defendant’s counsel filed a motion to quash on
ground that the action to file the complaint has prescribed. The fiscal contends that the
filing of the complaint before his office already interrupts the prescription period.

Issue: Whether or not the filing of information/complaint before the fiscal office
constituting a violation against a special law/ordinance interrupts prescription.

Held: The mere filing of complaint to the fiscal’s office does not interrupt the running of
prescription on offenses punishable by a special law. The complaint should have been
filed within a reasonable time before the court. It is only then that the running of the
prescriptive period is interrupted.

**Act 3326 is the governing law on prescription of crimes punishable by a special law
which states that prescription is only interrupted upon judicial proceeding.

G.R. No. 152662 June 13, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
MA. THERESA PANGILINAN

FACTS:
Virginia Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.22
against the respondent, Pangilinan on September 16, 1997 with the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City.
On December 5, 1997, a civil case was commenced by Pangilinan against Malolos for accounting,
recovery of commercial documents, enforceability and effectivity of contract and specific
performance before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City.
Five days thereafter or on December 10, 1997, Pangilinan filed a “Petition to Suspend Proceedings
on the Ground of Prejudicial Question” before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, citing
as basis the pendency of the civil action she filed with the RTC of Valenzuela City. The City
Prosecutor approved the petition upon the recommendation of the assistant City Prosecutor on
March 2, 1998.
Malolos appealed the decision of the City Prosecutor to the Department of Justice. On January 5,
1999, reversed the resolution of the City Prosecutor and ordered the filing of informations on
violations of Batas Pambansa Blg.22. Said cases were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City on November 18, 1999.
Pangilinan filed an “Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant
of Arrest” before MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon City. She alleged that her criminal liability has been
extinguished by reason of prescription.

ISSUE:
Whether or not prescription has set in.
HELD:
No, the action has not prescribed.
Act No. 3326 entitled “An Act to Establish Prescription for Violations of Special Acts and
Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin,” as amended, is the law
applicable to BP Blg. 22 cases. Appositely, the law reads:
SECTION 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts,
prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) xxx; (b) after four years for those punished by
imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) xxx.

SECTION 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the
law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of
judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.

The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and
shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
Since BP Blg. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30)
days but not more than one year or by a fine for its violation, it therefor prescribes in four (4) years in
accordance with the aforecited law. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should be
tolled upon the institution of proceedings against the guilty person.

Herminio Disini v. Sandiganbayan Case DIgest

Posted Oct 19, 11:58 AM

G.R. Nos. 169823-24

September 11, 2013

Case Principle
An Information cannot be quashed if the Court has jurisdiction to hear and
determine the case, if the offense has not yet prescribed, and if the Information
is sufficient in form and substance.

Facts

The Office of the Ombudsman filed two informations charging Disini in the
Sandiganbayan with corruption of public officials, penalized under Article 212
in relation to Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, and with a violation of
Section 4 (a) of Republic Act 3019 (R.A. No. 3019), also known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act.

Therafter, Disini filed a motion to quash alleging that the criminal actions had
been extinguished by prescription, and that the informations did not conform
to the prescribed form. The Prosecution opposed the motion to quash.

Later on, Disini voluntarily submitted himself for arraignment to obtain the
Sandiganbayan’s favorable action on his motion for permission to travel abroad.
He then entered a plea of not guilty to both informations.

The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash. Disini moved for

reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, this petition.

Issue

Whether or not the motion to quash should be granted on the grounds that (1)
the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction, (2) the offenses has prescribed, and (3)
Information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.

Held

No, the motion to quash cannot be granted since the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction, the offense has not yet prescribed, and the Information
substantially complied with the prescribed form.

The motion to quash cannot be granted on the ground of prescription since

prescription did not yet set in.

The offense of corruption of public officials as well as violation of RA 3019

prescribe in 15 years. Moreover, prescription begins to run from the date of
discovery of the crime and shall only be interrupted upon the filing of
complaint or information in Court (Article 91, Revised Penal Code).

In this case, prescription has not yet set in because it was only five years elapsed
from 1986, the time of the discovery of the offenses charged, up to April 1991,
the time of the filing of the criminal complaints in the Office of the
Ombudsman.