Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
PEREZ, J.
Facts:
On 16 September 1997, Virginia C. Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of Batas
Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22 against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan (respondent) with the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Quezon City. The complaint alleges that respondent issued nine (9) checks with an aggregate amount
of Nine Million Six Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Two Pesos (P9,658,592.00) in favor
Consequently, the case was modified, and only on February 3, 2000 that two counts for violation of BP Blg.
22 were filed against respondent Ma.Theresa Pangilinan in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. On
17 June 2000, respondent 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
In defense of her claim, Pangilinan said that the prevailing law that governs the prescription of special penal
law, B.P. 22, is Section 2 of Act No. 3326 (An Act To Establish Periods Of Prescription For Violations Penalized
By Special Acts) where the right to file an action to a “proper court” and not to merely to prosecution office
for B.P. 22, prescribes four (4) years from the commission of the crime. The imputed violation occurred
sometime in 1995, and only on February 3, 2000 that a case was formally filed in the Metropolitan Trial
Court, therefore the action already prescribes. RTC granted the motion.
On the other hand, the complainant argued that the filing with the office of city prosecutor constitutes an
Issue: Is filing complaint to city prosecutor office considered a “judicial proceeding” that can interrupt
Ruling:
YES. Following a catena of cases, the court held that, there is no more distinction between cases under the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period
of prescription; that the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation in the office of prosecutor
Following the factual finding the crime was committed sometime in 1995, the filing of complaint on
September 1997, two (2) years from the commission of the crime validly interrupts the running of
prescription. Therefore, the action against the respondent Pangilinan did not prescribe.