Você está na página 1de 2

PEOPLE%v.%PANGILINAN%(G.R.$No.

$152662)% Lower%Courts%
Date:% % June$13,$2012$ MeTC% Granted$the$motion$
Petitioner:$ People$of$the$Philippines$ RTC% Reversed$decision$of$the$MeTC$
Respondent:$ Ma.$Theresa$Pangilinan$ “considering$ the$ appropriate$ complaint$ that$ started$ the$
Ponente:$ Perez,$J.$ proceedings$ having$ been$ filed$ with$ the$ Office$ of$ the$
$ Prosecutor$on$16$September$1997”$
CA% Reversed$the$decision$of$the$RTC$
DOCTRINE:%
“The$private$respondent$then$had,$pursuant$to$Section$1$of$
There$is$no$more$distinction$between$cases$under$the$RPC$and$ Act$3326,$as$amended,$four$years$therefrom$or$until$the$latter$
those$covered$by$special$laws$with$respect$to$the$interruption$of$the$period$ part$of$1999$to$file$her$complaint$or$information$against$the$
of$prescription.$$ petitioner$before$the$proper$court.$Having$been$filed$with$the$
$ Metropolitan$Trial$Court$of$Quezon$City$only$on$03$February$
FACTS:% 2000,$the$said$cases$had$therefore,$clearly$prescribed.”$
% $
Timeline% Zaldivia$vs.$Reyes:$“According$to$Section$2$of$Act$No.$3326,$
16%September%1997% Virginia$ Malolos$ (private$ complainant)$ filed$ an$ affidavitK the$running$of$the$prescriptive$period$shall$be$stayed$on$the$
complaint$ for$ estafa$ and$ violation$ of$ BP22$ against$ the$ date$the$case$is$actually$filed$in$court$and$not$on$any$date$
respondent$with$the$Office$of$the$City$Prosecutor$of$Quezon$ before$that”$
City.$ $
$ Arguments%of%the%Parties%
Complaint$ alleges$ that$ respondent$ issued$ nine$ (9)$ checks$ OSG% While$ Act$ No.$ 3326,$ as$ amended$ by$ Act$ No.$ 3585$ and$
with$ an$ aggregate$ amount$ of$ P9,658,592.00$ in$ favor$ of$ further$amended$by$Act$No.$3763$dated$23$November$1930,$
private$ complainant$ which$ were$ dishonored$ upon$ governs$ the$ period$ of$ prescription$ for$ violations$ of$ special$
presentment$for$payment.% laws,$it$is$the$institution$of$criminal$actions,$whether$filed$with$
5%December%1997% Respondent$ filed$ a$ civil$ case$ for$ accounting,$ recovery$ of$ the$ court$ or$ with$ the$ Office$ of$ the$ City$ Prosecutor,$ that$
% commercial$ documents,$ enforceability$ and$ effectivity$ of$ interrupts$the$period$of$prescription$of$the$offense$charged.$$
contract$ and$ specific$ performance$ against$ private$ Respondent% The$filing$of$the$complaint$before$the$City$Prosecutors$Office$
complainant$before$the$RTC$of$Valenzuela$City.$ did$ not$ interrupt$ the$ running$ of$ the$ prescriptive$ period$
10%December%1997% Respondent$filed$a$Petition$to$Suspend$Proceedings$on$the$ considering$ that$ the$ offense$ charged$ is$ a$ violation$ of$ a$
Ground$of$Prejudicial$Question$(based$on$the$pendency$of$ special$law.$
the$civil$action$she$filed).$ The$ cases$ relied$ upon$ by$ petitioner$ involved$ felonies$
2%March%1998% The$ Assistant$ City$ Prosecutor$ recommended$ the$ punishable$under$the$Revised$Penal$Code$and$are$therefore$
suspension$ of$ the$ criminal$ proceedings$ pending$ the$ covered$by$Article$91$of$the$Revised$Penal$Code$(RPC)$and$
outcome$ of$ the$ civil$ action.$ The$ recommendation$ was$ Section$ 1,$ Rule$ 110$ of$ the$ Revised$ Rules$ on$ Criminal$
approved$by$the$City$Prosecutor.$ Procedure.$The$crime$imputed$against$her$is$for$violation$of$
5%January%1999% Then$Secretary$of$Justice$reversed$the$resolution$of$the$City$ BP$Blg.$22,$which$is$indisputably$a$special$law$and$as$such,$
Prosecutor$ of$ Quezon$ City$ and$ ordered$ the$ filing$ of$ is$governed$by$Act$No.$3326,$as$amended.$
informations$for$violation$of$BP$Blg.$22$for$two$(2)$of$the$nine$ $
(9)$checks.$ ISSUE:%
$ Whether$the$filing$of$the$affidavitKcomplaint$for$estafa$and$violation$of$BP$
The$estafa$and$violation$of$BP$Blg.$22$charges$involving$the$ Blg.$ 22$ against$ respondent$ with$ the$ Office$ of$ the$ City$ Prosecutor$ of$
seven$ (7)$ other$ checks$ included$ in$ the$ affidavitKcomplaint$ Quezon$City$on$16$September$1997$interrupted$the$period$of$prescription$
filed$on$16$September$1997$were,$however,$dismissed.$
of$such$offense.—YES.%
3%February%2000% Two$ (2)$ counts$ for$ violation$ of$ BP$ Blg.$ 22,$ both$ dated$ 18$
November$1999,$were$filed$before$MeTC.$
%
17%June%2000% Respondent$ filed$ an$ Omnibus$ Motion$ to$ Quash$ the$ RULING:%
Information$and$to$Defer$the$Issuance$of$Warrant$of$Arrest$ •$ Indeed,$ Act$ No.$ 3326$ entitled$ An$ Act$ to$ Establish$ Prescription$ for$
due$to$prescription.$ 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.$
o$ 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.$$
o$ The$running$of$the$prescriptive$period,$however,$should$be$tolled$
upon$the$institution$of$proceedings$against$the$guilty$person.$
•$ Respondents$ contention$ that$ a$ different$ rule$ should$ be$ applied$ to$
cases$ involving$ special$ laws$ is$ bereft$ of$ merit.$There% is% no% more%
distinction%between%cases%under%the%RPC%and%those%covered%by%
special% laws% with% respect% to% the% interruption% of% the% period% of%
prescription.%%
•$ The$ruling$in$Zaldivia'v.'Reyes,'Jr$is$not$controlling$in$special$laws.$
•$ Panaguiton,$ Jr.$ v.$ Department$ of$ Justice:$ commencement$ of$ the$
proceedings$for$the$prosecution$of$the$accused$before$the$Office$of$
the$City$Prosecutor$effectively$interrupted$the$prescriptive$period$for$
the$offenses$they$had$been$charged$under$BP$Blg.$22.$
•$ Aggrieved$parties,$especially$those$who$do$not$sleep$on$their$rights$
and$ actively$ pursue$ their$ causes,$ should$ not$ be$ allowed$ to$ suffer$
unnecessarily$further$simply$because$of$circumstances$beyond$their$
control,$ like$ the$ accused’s$ delaying$ tactics$ or$ the$ delay$ and$
inefficiency$of$the$investigating$agencies.$
o$ Clearly,$it$was$respondents$own$motion$for$the$suspension$of$the$
criminal$ proceedings,$ which$ motion$ she$ predicated$ on$ her$ civil$
case$ for$ accounting,$ that$ caused$ the$ filing$ in$ court$ of$ the$ 1997$
initiated$proceedings$only$in$2000.$
$
Instant$petition$is$GRANTED.$
$

Você também pode gostar