People of the Philippines vs Ma. Theresa Pangilinan

written by Howard

G.R. No. 152662 – 687 Phil. 95 – 672 SCRA 105 – Remedial Law – Criminal Procedure – Complaint and Information – Prescriptive Period – Filing of Complaint for Violations of Special Laws with the Prosecutor’s Office Tolls the Prescriptive Period

In the latter part of 1995, Ma. Theresa Pangilinan issued nine checks worth to Virginia Malolos. The checks bounced. As a result, Malolos filed estafa and bouncing checks cases against Pangilinan in September 1997.

In December 1997, Pangilinan filed a civil case against Malolos in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City. The basis of the civil case were facts also arising from the criminal cases filed by Malolos against Pangilinan. This prompted Pangilinan to request the suspension of the preliminary investigation, citing a prejudicial question. The City Prosecutor granted the suspension, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) later reversed this decision and ordered the filing of two informations for violation of BP 22.

The informations, dated November 1999, were filed on 3 February 2000. Pangilinan moved to quash them, arguing that the offenses had prescribed. Pangilinan argued that the Informations should have been filed in the latter part of 1999 in accordance with Act 3326 (An Act to Establish Prescription for Violations of Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin) which provides that violations of special penal laws prescribe in four years. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) granted the motion, but the RTC reversed this decision. Pangilinan then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reinstated the MeTC’s ruling.

ISSUE: Whether the filing of the affidavit-complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor in 1997 interrupted the running of the prescriptive period for the offenses charged under BP 22

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the filing of the affidavit-complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor on September 16, 1997, effectively interrupted the running of the prescriptive period for the offenses under BP 22.

The SC emphasized that under Act No. 3326, which governs the prescription of offenses punishable under special laws like BP 22, the prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings against the offender. The Court clarified that the term “proceedings” includes the filing of a complaint for preliminary investigation with the prosecutor’s office.

The Court also noted that the delay in the filing of the informations was partly due to Pangilinan’s own actions, such as filing a civil case and requesting the suspension of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, she could not invoke prescription to avoid prosecution.

Read full text.

NOTE: This digest was crafted with AI assistance.