4. PEOPLE VS PANGILINAN 9.
ISSUE: WON the filing of the estafa and BP 22 cases on 1997 interrupted the prescriptive
G.R. NO. 152662
JUNE 13, 2012
TOPIC: SPL AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY, PENALTIES AND SERVICE THEREO; ACT NO. 3362;
WHEN PRESCRIPTION BEGINS TO RUN; JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
PETITIONER: PEOPLE
RESPONDENT: MA. THERESA PANGILINAN
FACTS:
1. Virginia Malolos (private complainant) filed for estafa and BP 22 against Pangilinan w/ the
OCP of QC. She alleged that Pangilinan issued 9 checks amounting to PhP9.6M in favor of
Malolos w/c were then dishonored.
2. Pangilinan filed a civil case for accounting, recovery of documents and enforceability of
contract and specific performance against Malolos before RTC-Valenzuela. Days after,
respondent filed to suspend the proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question before
the OCP of QC due to the pending civil case w/c the OCP of QC approved.
3. Aggrieved, Malolos went to the DOJ w/c reversed the OCP’s resolution and ordered the
filing of the informations for BP 22 violations and estafa against Pangilinan. Pangilinan then
filed a MTQ before the MeTC-QC (where the BP 22 violations were filed) against the
information and to defer the issuance of the arrest warrant alleging that her criminal
liability has been extinguished via prescription to w/c the MeTC granted.
4. Malolos appealed before the RTC-QC w/c reversed the MeTC order as prescription had not
yet set in.
a. The informations were filed on 2/3/2000 in the MetC but was received by the court
itself (MeTC??) on 6/7/2000 thus are covered by the rule that it was worded before
the latest amendment.
b. The criminal actions for BP 22 had not yet prescribed when it was filed with the court
a quo considering the appropriate complaint that started the proceedings having been
with the OCP on 9/16/1997.
5. On a petition for review, the CA reversed the RTC. It ruled that the reckoning of the
commencement of the period of prescription for BP 22 complaints that were imputed in
1995, as it was within such period that Pangilian was notified by Malolos of the dishonor
and the 5 day grace period granted by had elapsed. Malolos had 4 yrs or until 1999 to file
her complaint pursuant to Sec. 1 Act. 3326 before the court. But the information was filed
on 2000 thus the actions had prescribed.
a. In Zaldivia vs Reyes, SC ruled that pursuant to Sec. 22 of Act 3326, prescription shall be
interrupted when proceedings are instituted. “Judicial proceedings” means the filing
of the complaint w/ the proper court.
6. The OSG appealed. It admitted that while Act. 3326 governed the period of prescription
for violation of special laws, it is the institution of the criminal action, whether before the
court or the prosecutor, interrupts the prescription period thus when Malolos filed the
complaints on 1997, it interrupted the prescriptive period.
7. It further maintained that the CA erred in applying Zaldivia and that more recent
jurisprudence held that the SC ruled that the filing of a complaint before the OCP for
preliminary investigation suspends the running of the prescription period hence the filing
of the information before the MeTC in 2000 did not prescribe.
8. Pangilinan argued for the dismissal of the case for non-compliance with procedural rules
and the filing before the OCP did not interrupt the prescriptive period.
period - YES
RULING:
Sec. 1, Act 3326 - Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in
such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (b) after four years for those
punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years
Sec 2, Act 3326. - 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.
10. 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.
11. BP 22, w/c is a SPL, imposes not less than 30 days of imprisonment but more than 1 yr or
by a fine, thus it prescribes in 4 yrs in accordance w/ Act 3326. The running of the
prescriptive period should be tolled upon the institution of the proceedings against the
guilty person.
12. In People vs Olarte, SC ruled that the filing of the complaint in the MTC even if for purposes
of preliminary investigation should interrupt the prescription period of the criminal
responsibility if there was no trial on the merits yet. In Francisco vs CA, SC held the filing of
the complaint before the fiscal’s office also suspended the prescriptive period.
13. Pangilinan’s claim that a different rule should apply in SPL cases as there is no distinction
between RPC cases and SPL cases with respect to the interruption of the prescriptive
period. Zaldivia is inapplicable. More recent jurisprudence involving held that the
institution of preliminary investigation.
a. In Panaguiton vs DOJ, SC categorically ruled that the commencement of the
proceedings for the prosecution of the accused before the OCP interrupts the
prescriptive period for BP 22 violations. Aggrieved parties should not suffer the
delaying tactics of the accused.
14. In this case, the complaints were filed against Pangilinan in 1997 and reached the MetC on
2000 because in the meanwhile, Pangilinan filed a civil case before the OCP to suspend the
proceedings on ground of prejudicial question. The matter was raised in the DOJ before
the approval to suspend the proceedings. It was only after the DOJ ordered the
informations be filed in the MeTC. It is clear that Pangilinan’s move to suspend the criminal
proceeding that caused the filing in court of the 1997 proceedings only in 2000.
FALLO: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is GRANTED. The 12 March 2002
Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Department of Justice
is ORDERED to re-file the informations for violation of BP Blg. 22 against the respondent.