Facts Issue Ruling
G.R. No. 102342 "for offenses not subject to
Zaldivia v. Reyes the rule on summary
procedure in special cases,"
The petitioner is charged with which plainly signifies that the
quarrying for commercial section does not apply to
purposes without a mayor's offenses which are subject to
permit in violation of summary procedure.
Ordinance No. 2, Series of
1988, of the Municipality of These offenses are not
Rodriguez, in the Province of covered by the Rule on
Rizal. Summary Procedure.
The offense was allegedly Under Section 9 of the Rule
committed on May 11, 1990.1 on Summary Procedure, "the
The referral-complaint of the complaint or information shall
police was received by the be filed directly in court
Office of the Provincial without need of a prior
Prosecutor of Rizal on May preliminary examination or
30, 1990. 2 The preliminary investigation." 6
corresponding information Both parties agree that this
was filed with the Municipal provision does not prevent
Trial Court of Rodriguez on the prosecutor from
October 2, 1990. conducting a preliminary
investigation if he wants to.
The petitioner moved to However, the case shall be
quash the information on the deemed commenced only
ground that the crime had when it is filed in court,
prescribed, but the motion whether or not the
was denied. On appeal to the prosecution decides to
Regional Trial Court of Rizal, conduct a preliminary
the denial was sustained by investigation. This means
the respondent judge that the running of the
prescriptive period shall be
She then invokes Act. No. halted on the date the case is
3326, as amended, entitled actually filed in court and not
"An Act to Establish Periods on any date before that.
of Prescription for Violations
Penalized by Special Acts This interpretation is in
and Municipal Ordinances consonance with the afore-
and to Provide When quoted Act No. 3326 which
Prescription Shall Begin to says that the period of
Run," reading as follows: prescription shall be
suspended "when
Sec. 1. Violations penalized proceedings are instituted
by special acts shall, unless against the guilty party." The
provided in such acts, proceedings referred to in
prescribe in accordance with Section 2 thereof are "judicial
the following rules: . . . proceedings,"
Violations penalized by
municipal ordinances shall At any rate, the Court feels
prescribe after two months. that if there be a conflict
between the Rule on
Sec. 2. Prescription shall Summary Procedure and
begin to run from the day of Section 1 of Rule 110 of the
the commission of the Rules on Criminal Procedure,
violation of the law, and if the the former should prevail as
same be not known at the the special law. And if there
time, from the discovery be a conflict between Act.
thereof and the institution of No. 3326 and Rule 110 of the
judicial proceedings for its Rules on Criminal Procedure,
investigation and the latter must again yield
punishment. because this Court, in the
exercise of its rule-making
Her conclusion is that as the power, is not allowed to
information was filed way "diminish, increase or modify
beyond the two-month substantive rights" under
statutory period from the date Article VIII, Section 5(5) of
of the alleged commission of the Constitution. Prescription
the offense, the charge in criminal cases is a
against her should have been substantive right.
dismissed on the ground of
prescription. Our conclusion is that the
prescriptive period for the
crime imputed to the
the text of Article 91 of the petitioner commenced from
Revised Penal Code, in its alleged commission on
declaring that the period of May 11, 1990, and ended two
prescription "shall be months thereafter, on July
interrupted by the filing of the 11, 1990, in accordance with
complaint or information" Section 1 of Act No. 3326. It
without distinguishing was not interrupted by the
whether the complaint is filed filing of the complaint with the
in the court for preliminary Office of the Provincial
examination or investigation Prosecutor on May 30, 1990,
n merely, or for action on the as this was not a judicial
merits 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.
G.R. No. 122274 The key issue raised in this Under Article 90 of the
Llenes v. Dicdican special civil action for Revised Penal Code, the
certiorari under Rule 65 of crime of grave oral
On 13 October 1993, private the Rules of Court is whether defamation, which is the
respondent Vivian G. Ginete, the filing with the office of the subject of the information in
then officer-in-charge of the Ombudsman of a complaint Criminal Case No. 35684-R
Physical Education and against a government official of the MTC of Cebu,
School Sports (PESS) for grave oral defamation prescribes in 6 months. Since
Division of the Regional interrupts the period of Article 13 of the Civil Code
Office of Region VII in Cebu prescription of such offense. provides that when the law
City of the Department of speaks of months it shall be
Education, Culture and understood to be of 30 days,
Sports (DECS), filed with the then grave oral defamation
Office of the Deputy prescribes in 180 days.
Ombudsman for the Visayas
(hereinafter Ombudsman- Article 91 also expresses that
Visayas) a complaint for the interrupted prescription
grave oral defamation2 "shall commence to run again
allegedly committed on 23 when such proceedings
September 1993 by petitioner terminate without the
Susan V. Llenes, an accused being convicted or
Education Supervisor II of the acquitted", thereby indicating
same Regional Office. that the court in which the
complaint or information is
The petitioner was required filed must have power to
to file a counter-affidavit acquit or convict the accused.
pursuant to Administrative
Order No. 7 of the Office of
the Ombudsman, but she
failed to do so
On 30 May 1994, the
petitioner filed a motion to
quash5 the information on
the ground that the "criminal
action or liability" has been
extinguished. She contended
that under Article 90 of the
Revised Penal Code, the
offense of grave oral
defamation prescribes in 6
months and that since the
information was filed only on
28 March 1994, or 186 days
or 6 months and 6 days after
its alleged commission, the
crime had then already
prescribed. In support
thereof, she cited the
decision in "Zalderia6 vs.
Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 102342
The private respondent
further claimed that Zaldivia
is inapplicable because it
involves an offense covered
by the rule on summary
procedure and it explicitly
stated that Section 1 of Rule
110 excludes cases covered
by the Rule on Summary
Procedure.
The Municipal Trial Court, per
public respondent Judge
Bajarias, denied the motion
to quash in the order of 18
July 1994.8 It fully agreed
with the stand of the private
respondent.
. Article 91 of the Revised
Penal Code simply states
that the prescriptive period
shall be interrupted by the
"filing of the complaint or
information" and has not
specified further where such
complaint or information
should be filed.
G.R. No. 234618
People vs lee
In this Petition for Review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, the People of the
Philippines, as petitioner, thru
the Office of the Special
Prosecutor (OSP) of the
Office of the Ombudsman,
seeks the reversal of the
Sandiganbayan's
Resolution1 dated
September 6, 2017, which
granted Mateo Acuin Lee,
Jr.'s (Lee) Motion for
Reconsideration and ordered
the dismissal of the case
against him on the ground of
prescription, and Resolution2
dated October 6, 2017, which
denied petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration.
Art. 90. Prescription of crimes. – Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion
temporal shall prescribe in 20 years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in 15 years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in 10 years; with the exception of
those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in 5 years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in 1 year.
The offenses of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in 6 months.
Light offenses prescribe in 2 months.
