GR 152662; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152662 ; June 13, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. MA. THERESA PANGILINAN, Respondent.
FACTS
On September 16, 1997, Virginia C. Malolos filed a complaint-affidavit for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan with the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office, alleging that several checks issued by Pangilinan were dishonored. The Department of Justice ultimately directed the filing of two Informations for BP 22. These Informations were filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) on February 3, 2000. Pangilinan moved to quash, arguing the offense had prescribed, which the MeTC granted. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, holding the action had not prescribed as the complaint was filed with the prosecutor in 1997.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the dismissal, ruling that prescription commenced when the checks were dishonored in 1995 and that the four-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326 expired in 1999. The CA held that only the judicial filing of the Information in court in 2000 could interrupt prescription, not the 1997 filing of the complaint with the prosecutor. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the filing of the complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor in 1997 interrupted the running of the prescriptive period for the violation of BP 22.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the filing of the complaint with the prosecuting officer in 1997 effectively interrupted the prescriptive period. The legal logic is anchored on the interpretation of Act No. 3326 , as amended, in relation to the Rules of Criminal Procedure and prevailing jurisprudence.
The Court clarified that for offenses governed by Act No. 3326 , like BP 22, the prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of judicial proceedings. Citing the landmark case of People v. Olarte and its progeny, the Court ruled that the “institution” of the criminal action commences upon the filing of the complaint with the proper prosecuting official for preliminary investigation, not merely upon the filing of the Information in court. This interpretation prevents the unjust deprivation of the offended party’s right to vindication due to delays in the prosecution process beyond their control. Since the complaint was filed with the prosecutor in September 1997, well within the four-year period from the 1995 discovery of the offense, prescription was timely interrupted. The subsequent filing of the Information in court in 2000 was therefore valid, and the criminal action had not prescribed. The DOJ was ordered to re-file the Informations.