Luz M. Zaldivia v. Hon. Andres B. Reyes, Jr.

Facts:Petitioner Zaldivia is charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a

mayor's permit in the municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal.Timeline:
1. May 11, 1990 the offense was allegedly commited.
2. May 30, 1990 the referral-complaint of the police was receive by the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor.
3. Oct. 2, 1990 (5 months after filing of complaint in fiscals office) the
corresponding information was filed with the MTC of Rodriguez.
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
1. the case filed against her is govern by the provisions on the Rules of Summary
Procedure.
2. She contends that criminal cases like violations of municipal or city ordinances
does not require preliminary investigation and
3. shall be filed directly to the court and not in the Prosecutors office.
4. 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
Prosecutors office it suspends the prescriptive period.
Issue: Whether or not the prescription of period ceased (end) to run when the case was
filed on the prosecutors office?
Decision:

Petition granted. Case dismissed on the ground of prescription.

Ruling:
No. As a general rule, the filing of the case in the prosecutors 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 fiscals
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. The prescriptive period was not interrupted by
the filing of the complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor as this was not a
judicial proceeding. It must be the filing of the case in court which will interrupt the
period from running.
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.