Art. 360. Persons responsible.
— Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or province where such action may be instituted in accordance with the
cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by
similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business
manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be
responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he
were the author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as
provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with
the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however,
That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in
the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action
shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the
city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and
in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the
action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city
where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where
the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the
offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court
of First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time
of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and
first published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the
same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided,
furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or civil action for
damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other
courts: And, provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases
of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions which have been
filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law.c library
Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written defamations as
provided for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal
of the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the
provisions of this article.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a
crime which cannot be prosecuted de officio shall be brought except at the
instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party.
Sec. 90, Article 9165
Jurisdiction. –The Supreme Court shall designate special courts from among
the existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to exclusively try
and hear cases involving violations of this Act. The number of courts
designated in each judicial region shall be based on the population and the
number of cases pending in their respective jurisdiction.
The Department of Justice shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively
handle cases involving violations of this Act.
The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall be
terminated within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of their filing.
When the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public prosecutor and
a probable cause is established, the corresponding information shall be filed
in court within twenty-four (24) hours from the termination of the
investigation. If the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge and a
probable cause is found to exist, the corresponding information shall be
filed by the proper prosecutor within forty-eight (48) hours from the date of
receipt of the records of the case.
Trial of the case under this Section shall be finished by the court not later
than sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the information. Decision
on said cases shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15) days from the
date of submission of the case for resolution.
Sec. 2, Article 10175
Declaration of Policy. — The State recognizes the vital role of information
and communications industries such as content production,
telecommunications, broadcasting electronic commerce, and data
processing, in the nation’s overall social and economic development. The
State also recognizes the importance of providing an environment
conducive to the development, acceleration, and rational application and
exploitation of information and communications technology (ICT) to attain
free, easy, and intelligible access to exchange and/or delivery of
information; and the need to protect and safeguard the integrity of
computer, computer and communications systems, networks, and databases,
and the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and data
stored therein, from all forms of misuse, abuse, and illegal access by
making punishable under the law such conduct or conducts. In this light, the
State shall adopt sufficient powers to effectively prevent and combat such
offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation, and prosecution at
both the domestic and international levels, and by providing arrangements
for fast and reliable international cooperation.
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8249]
AN ACT FURTHER DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING
FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines
in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. The first paragraph of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No.
1606, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
“SECTION. 1. Sandiganbayan; Composition, Qualifications; Tenure;
Removal and Compensation. – A special court, of the same level as the
Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of
justice, to be known as the Sandiganbayan is hereby created composed of a
presiding justice and fourteen associate justices who shall be appointed by
the President.”
SEC. 2. Section 2 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
“SEC. 2. Official Station; Place of Holding Sessions. – The Sandiganbayan
shall have its principal office in the Metro Manila area and shall hold
sessions thereat for the trial and determination of cases filed with it:
Provided, however, That cases originating from the principal geographical
regions of the country, that is, from Luzon, Visayas or Mindanao, shall be
heard in their respective regions of origin except only when the greater
convenience of the accused and of the witnesses, or other compelling
considerations require the contrary, in which instance a case originating
from one geographical region may be heard in another geographical region:
Provided, further, That for this purpose the presiding justice shall authorize
any divisions of the court to hold sessions at any time and place outside
Metro Manila and, where the interest of justice so requires, outside the
territorial boundaries of the Philippines. The Sandiganbayan may require
the services of the personnel and the use of facilities of the courts or other
government offices where any of the divisions is holding sessions and the
personnel of such courts or offices shall be subject to the orders of the
Sandiganbayan.”
SEC. 3. The second paragraph of Section 3 of the same decree is hereby
deleted.
SEC. 4. Section 4 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
“a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as
the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where
one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions
in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the
time of the commission of the offense:
“(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No.
6758), specifically including:
“(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other
provincial department heads;
“(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod,
city treasurers, assessors engineers and other city department heads;
“(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and
higher;
“(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers
of higher rank;
“(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position
of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or
higher;
“(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
“(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or -
controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations;
“(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and
up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
“(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
“(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
“(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade’27’and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
“b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other
crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection a of this section in relation to their office.
“c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
“In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding
to salary grade ’27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No.
6758, or military or PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original
jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial
court as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as
provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
“The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
final judgments, resolutions or orders or regional trial courts whether in the
exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as
herein provided.
“The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions
for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo
warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed
under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided,
That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the
Supreme Court.
“The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the
implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may
hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of
Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the
Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the
Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman,
through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines,
except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A,
issued in 1986.
“In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or
accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed
in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly
with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.
“Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding,
the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of
civil liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to
necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve
the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be
recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had therefore
been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and
the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan
or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint
determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action
shall be deemed abandoned.”
SEC. 5. Section 7 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
“SEC. 7. Form, Finality and Enforcement of Decisions. – All decisions and
final orders determining the merits of a case or finally disposing of the
action or proceedings of the Sandiganbayan shall contain complete findings
of the facts and the law on which they are based, on all issues properly
raised before it and necessary in deciding the case.
“A petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision may be filed
within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the final order on
judgment, and such motion for reconsideration shall be decided within
thirty (30) days from submission thereon.
“Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbyan shall be appealable to the
Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of
law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Whenever, in any
case decided by the Sandiganbayan, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or death is imposed, the decision shall be appealable to the
Supreme Court in the manner prescribed in the Rules of Court.
“Judgments and orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be executed and
enforced in the manner provided by law.
“Decisions and final orders of other courts in cases cognizable by said
courts under this decree as well as those rendered by them in the exercise of
their appellate jurisdiction shall be appealable to, or be reviewable by, the
Sandiganbayan in the manner provided by Rule 122 of the Rules of the
Court.
“In case, however, the imposed penalty by the Sandiganbayan or the
regional trial court in the proper exercise of their respective jurisdictions, is
death, review by the Supreme Court shall be automatic, whether or not
accused files an appeal.”
SEC. 6. Appropriations. – The amount necessary to carry out the initial
implementation of this Act shall be charged against the current fiscal year
appropriations of the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, such sums as may be
needed for its continued implementation shall be included in the annual
General Appropriations Act.
SEC. 7. Transitory Provision. – This Act shall apply to all cases pending in
any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof.
SEC. 8. Separability of Provisions. – If for any reason any provision of this
Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid, such parts or portions not
affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.
SEC. 9. Repealing Clause. – All acts, decrees, general orders and circulars,
or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly.
SEC. 10. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
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
1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in
such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year
for offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than
one month, or both; (b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment
for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for
those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six
years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offense punished by
imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall
prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances
shall prescribe after two months.
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 proceeding 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.
SECTION 3. For the purposes of this Act, special acts shall be acts defining
and penalizing violations of the law not included in the Penal Code.
SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect on its approval.
LUZ M. ZALDIVIA, Petitioner, v. HON. ANDRES B. REYES, JR., in
his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 76, San Mateo, Rizal, and PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Hector B. Almeyda for Petitioner.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; PRESCRIPTION; 1985 RULES ON CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD DOES NOT APPLY TO
OFFENSES SUBJECT TO SUMMARY PROCEDURE. — Section 1, Rule
110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure meaningfully begins with the
phrase, "for offenses not subject to the rule on summary procedure in
special cases," which plainly signifies that the section does not apply to
offenses which are subject to summary procedure. The phrase "in all cases"
appearing in the last paragraph obviously refers to the cases covered by the
Section, that is, those offenses not governed by the Rule on Summary
Procedure. This interpretation conforms to the canon that words in a statute
should be read in relation to and not isolation from the rest of the measure,
to discover the true legislative intent.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SECTION (B) REFERS TO SECTION 32(2) OF BP
NO. 129. — Where paragraph (b) of the section does speak of "offenses
falling under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts," the obvious reference is to Section 32(2) of B.P. No.
129, vesting in such courts: Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months,
or a fine of not more than four thousand pesos, or both such fine and
imprisonment, regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties,
including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof; Provided, however,
That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence
they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable fine does
not exceed twenty thousand pesos. These offenses are not covered by the
Rule on Summary Procedure.
3. ID.; ID.; RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE; APPLIES TO
VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL OR CITY ORDINANCES. — As it is
clearly provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure that among the
offenses it covers are violations of municipal or city ordinances, it should
follow that the charge against the petitioner, which is for violation of a
municipal ordinance of Rodriguez, is governed by that rule and not Section
1 of Rule 110.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD STARTS ONLY WHEN THE
CASE IS ACTUALLY FILED IN COURT. — Under Section 9 of the Rule
on Summary Procedure, "the complaint or information shall be filed directly
in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary
investigation." Both parties agree that this provision does not prevent the
prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to.
However, the case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in
court, whether or not the prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary
investigation. This means that the running of the prescriptive period shall be
halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date
before that.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INTERPRETATION IN CONSONANCE WITH ACT
NO. 3326. — This interpretation is in consonance with Act No. 3326 which
says that the period of prescription shall be suspended "when proceedings
are instituted against the guilty party." The proceedings referred to in
Section 2 thereof are "judicial proceedings," contrary to the submission of
the Solicitor General that they include administrative proceedings. His
contention is that we must not distinguish as the law does not distinguish.
As a matter of fact, it does.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; SPECIAL LAW PREVAILS OVER GENERAL LAW;
PRESCRIPTION IN CRIMINAL CASES IS A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT.
— The Court feels that if there be a conflict between the Rule on Summary
Procedure and Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure,
the former should prevail as the special law. And if there be a conflict
between Act No. 3326 and Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure,
the latter must again yield because this Court, in the exercise of its rule-
making power, is not allowed to "diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights" under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution. Prescription in
criminal cases is a substantive right.
7. ID.; ID.; CRIME PRESCRIBES IF THE PROSECUTOR DELAYS
INTENTIONALLY OR NOT THE INSTITUTION OF NECESSARY
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. — The Court realizes that under the above
interpretation, a crime may prescribe even if the complaint is filed
seasonably with the prosecutor’s office if, intentionally or not, he delays the
institution of the necessary judicial proceedings until it is too late. However,
that possibility should not justify a misreading of the applicable rules
beyond their obvious intent as reasonably deduced from their plain
language. The remedy is not a distortion of the meaning of the rules but a
rewording thereof to prevent the problem here sought to be corrected.
DECISION
CRUZ, J.:
The Court is asked to determine the applicable law specifying the
prescriptive period for violations of municipal ordinances.
The petitioner is charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a
mayor’s permit in violation of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1988, of the
Municipality of Rodriguez, in the Province of
Rizal.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
The offense was allegedly committed on May 11, 1990. 1 The referral-
complaint of the police was received by the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Rizal on May 30, 1990. 2 The corresponding information was
filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990. 3
The petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime
had prescribed, but the motion was denied. On appeal to the Regional Trial
Court of Rizal, the denial was sustained by the responded judge. 4
In the present petition for review on certiorari, the petitioner first argues
that the charge against her is governed by the following provisions of the Run," reading as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Rule on Summary Procedure:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
SECTION 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise
SECTION 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the procedure in the provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: . . .
Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two
Circuit Trial Court in the following cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library months.

x x x 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
B. Criminal Cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library investigation and punishment.

1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations; The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against
the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are
2. Violations of rental law; dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.

3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;chanrobles.com.ph : virtual
law library
4. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the
offense charged does not exceed six months imprisonment, or a fine of one
thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other impossible
penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom. .
. ." (Emphasis supplied.)
SECTION 3. For the purposes of this Act, special acts shall be acts defining
and penalizing violations of law not included in the Penal Code." (Emphasis
supplied)
Her conclusion is that as the information was filed way beyond the two-
month statutory period from the date of the alleged commission of the
offense, the charge against her should have been dismissed on the ground
prescription.

x x x For its part, the prosecution contends that the prescriptive period was
suspended upon the filing of the complaint against her with the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor. Agreeing with the respondent judge, the Solicitor
SECTION 9. How commenced. — The prosecution of criminal cases falling General also invokes Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
within the scope of this Rule shall be either by complaint or by information Procedure, providing as follows:cralawnad
filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or
preliminary investigation: Provided, however, That in Metropolitan Manila SECTION 1. How Instituted. — For offenses not subject to the rule on
and chartered cities, such cases shall be commenced only by information; summary procedure in special cases, the institution of criminal action shall
Provided, further, That when the offense cannot be prosecuted de officio, be as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
the corresponding complaint shall be signed and sworn to before the fiscal
by the offended party. a) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, by
filing the complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of
She then invokes Act No. 3326, as amended, entitled "An Act to Establish conducting the requisite preliminary investigation therein;
Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and
Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to b) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, by filing the complaint directly with the
said courts, or a complaint with the fiscal’s office. However, in
Metropolitan Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint may be filed
only with the office of the fiscal.
In all cases such institution interrupts the period of prescription of the
offense charged. (Emphasis supplied.)
Emphasis is laid on the last paragraph. The respondent maintains that the
filing of the complaint with the Officer of the Provincial Prosecutor comes
under the phrase "such institution" and that the phrase "in all cases" applies
to all cases, without distinction, including those falling under the Rule on
Summary Procedure.
The said paragraph, according to the respondent, was an adoption of the
following dictum in Francisco v. Court of Appeals: 5
In view of this diversity of precedents, and in order to provide guidance for
Bench and Bar, this Court has re-examined the question and, after mature
consideration, has arrived at the conclusion that the true doctrine is, and
should be, the one established by the decisions holding that the filing of the
complaint in the Municipal Court, even if it be merely for purposes of
preliminary examination or investigation, should, and does, interrupt the
period of prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if the court where
the complaint or information is filed can not try the case on its merits.
Several reasons buttress this conclusion: first, the text of Article 91 of the
Revised Penal Code, in declaring that the period of prescription "shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information" without
distinguishing whether the complaint is filed in the court for preliminary
examination or investigation merely, or for action on the merits. Second,
even if the court where the complaint or information is filed may only
proceed to investigate the case, its actuations already represent the initial
step of the proceedings against the offender. Third, it is unjust to deprive the
injured party of the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are
not under his control. All that the victim of the offense may do on his part to
initiate the prosecution is to file the requisite complaint.
It is important to note that this decision was promulgated on May 30, 1983,
two months before the promulgation of the Rule on Summary Procedure on
August 1, 1983. On the other hand, Section 1 of Rule 110 is new, having
been incorporated therein with the revision of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure on January 1, 1985, except for the last paragraph, which was
added on October 1, 1988.
That section meaningfully begins with the phrase, "for offenses not subject
to the rule on summary procedure in special cases," which plainly signifies
that the section does not apply to offenses which are subject to summary
procedure. The phrase "in all cases" appearing in the last paragraph
obviously refers to the cases covered by the Section, that is, those offenses
not governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure. This interpretation
conforms to the canon that words in a statute should be read in relation to
and not isolation from the rest of the measure, to discover the true
legislative intent.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
As it is clearly provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure that among the
offenses it covers are violations of municipal or city ordinances, it should
follow that the charge against the petitioner, which is for violation of a
municipal ordinance of Rodriguez, is governed by that rule and not Section
1 of Rule 110.
Where paragraph (b) of the section does speak of "offenses falling under the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts," the obvious reference is to Section 32 (2) of B.P. No. 129, vesting
in such courts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of not
more than four thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment,
regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the
civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective
of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof; Provided, however, That in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence they
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not
exceed twenty thousand pesos.
These offenses are not covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
Under Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, "the complaint or
information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior
preliminary examination or preliminary investigation." 6 Both parties agree
that this provision does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting a
preliminary investigation if he wants to. However, the case shall be deemed
commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the prosecution
decides to conduct a preliminary investigation. This means that the running
of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actual filed
in court and not on any date before that.
This interpretation is in consonance with the afore-quoted Act No. 3326
which says that the period of prescription shall be suspended "when
proceedings are instituted against the guilty party." The proceedings
referred to in Section 2 thereof are "judicial proceedings," contrary to the
submission of the Solicitor General that they include administrative
proceedings. His contention is that we must not distinguish as the law does
not distinguish. As a matter of fact, it does.
At any rate, the Court feels that if there be a conflict between the Rule on
Summary Procedure and Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure, the former should prevail as the special law. And if there be a
conflict between Act No. 3326 and Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure, the latter must again yield because this Court, in the exercise of
its rule-making power, is not allowed to "diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights" under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution
Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right. 7
problem here sought to be corrected.cralawnad
Our 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.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, and the challenged Order dated
October 2, 1991 is SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. 90-089 in the Municipal
Trial Court of Rodriguez, Rizal, is hereby DISMISSED on the ground of
prescription. It is so ordered.

Going back to the Francisco case, we find it not irrelevant to observe that
the decision would have been conformable to Section 1, Rule 110, as the
offense involved was grave oral defamation punishable under the Revised
Penal Code with arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period. By contrast, the prosecution in the
instant case is for violation of a municipal ordinance, for which the penalty
cannot exceed six months, 8 and is thus covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure.

The Court realizes that under the above interpretation, a crime may
prescribe even if the complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutor’s
office if, intentionally or not, he delays the institution of the necessary
judicial proceedings until it is too late. However, that possibility should not
justify a misreading of the applicable rules beyond their obvious intent as
reasonably deduced from their plain language. The remedy is not a
distortion of the meaning of the rules but a rewording thereof to prevent the