G.R. No. 167571 November 25, 2008
LUIS PANAGUITON, JR., petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RAMON C. TONGSON and RODRIGO G. CAWILI, respondents.

FACTS

In 1992, Rodrigo Cawili borrowed money from petitioner Luis Panaguiton, Jr. On January 8, 1993, Cawili and Ramon Tongson jointly issued three checks to petitioner as payment. The checks were dishonored upon presentment on March 18, 1993. Petitioner filed a complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against both before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office on August 24, 1995. The City Prosecutor found probable cause only against Cawili and dismissed the charges against Tongson. Petitioner appealed to the DOJ. On July 11, 1997, the Chief State Prosecutor directed a reinvestigation and referral of Tongson’s signatures to the NBI. On March 15, 1999, Assistant City Prosecutor Sampaga dismissed the complaint against Tongson, ruling the offense had prescribed per Act No. 3326 , as the four-year prescriptive period from the 1993 dishonor had lapsed without an information being filed, and that the filing of the administrative complaint with the prosecutor did not interrupt prescription. Petitioner appealed to the DOJ. On April 3, 2003, the DOJ ruled in petitioner’s favor, citing Ingco v. Sandiganbayan, and held the filing of the complaint interrupted prescription, directing the filing of informations. Informations were filed on July 8, 2003. However, on August 9, 2004, the DOJ reversed itself, ruling the offense had prescribed, citing Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr., and ordered the withdrawal of the informations, holding Act No. 3326 applied and that only judicial proceedings interrupt prescription. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it on technical grounds (verification and certification issues) and for being patently without merit.

ISSUE

Whether the filing of a complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 with the Office of the City Prosecutor for preliminary investigation interrupts the prescriptive period for the offense.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. On technical grounds, the Court held the verification deficiency was not fatal and was subsequently cured, and the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for failing to attach the correct DOJ resolution. On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor on August 24, 1995, interrupted the prescriptive period for the violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The Court clarified that Act No. 3326 governs the prescription of offenses under special laws like B.P. Blg. 22, which lacks its own prescriptive period. Interpreting Section 2 of Act No. 3326 , which states prescription is interrupted by “the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment,” the Court held that the term “judicial proceedings” includes the preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor. This investigation is an integral part of the process leading to criminal prosecution. The Court distinguished Zaldivia, which involved a municipal ordinance, and aligned with the doctrine in Ingco v. Sandiganbayan and subsequent cases involving special laws, where the filing of the complaint with the investigating officer or Ombudsman interrupts prescription. Therefore, the offense had not prescribed when the complaint was filed in 1995, and the DOJ’s August 9, 2004 resolution ordering the withdrawal of the informations was issued with grave abuse of discretion.