GR 26336; (February, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26336 February 27, 1970
LINO G. DAVID, SERAFIN DAVID, ORLANDO DAVID, VICTOR PASCUAL, JAIME REYES, TROADIO ESPINOSA, JOSE JUNTADO, CASTRO SARMIENTO, ANTONIO LICU, GREGORIO DIMATALO, EVARISTO INES, MARCOS MANZANO, JUAN TEOPILO, FILEMON MANALOTO, RESTITUTO FELIPE, PARAZO, LINO TAGUINES, FLAVIANO SOSA, APOLINARIO LACTAOTAO, BERNARDINO CAMUS and ANTONIO PASCUAL, petitioners, vs. JUDGE ARTURO B. SANTOS and JOSE GERONIMO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lino David and private respondent Jose Geronimo were candidates for mayor of Tarlac in the November 12, 1963 elections, with David proclaimed the winner. On January 25, 1964, Geronimo filed a criminal complaint with the Court of First Instance of Tarlac against David and his co-petitioners for alleged violation of Section 49 of the Revised Election Code (unlawful expenditures) committed during the campaign. The respondent court scheduled a preliminary investigation. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, first challenging Geronimo’s legal personality to file it, and later asserting the ground of prescription. They argued that the two-year prescriptive period under Section 188 of the Revised Election Code had lapsed without the Provincial Fiscal filing an information in court, thus the State lost the right to prosecute. The respondent court denied the motions, ruling that it acquired jurisdiction and the prescriptive period was interrupted from the filing of the complaint on January 25, 1964, and that its exclusive jurisdiction over election cases is continuous from preliminary investigation to trial.
ISSUE
Whether the filing of a criminal complaint for an election offense with the Court of First Instance, which has exclusive jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation, interrupts the running of the prescriptive period for the offense.
RULING
Yes. The offense has not prescribed. The filing of the criminal complaint on January 25, 1964, with the Court of First Instance, which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation of election offenses, interrupted the two-year prescriptive period. The period remains tolled pending termination of the proceedings. Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, is supplementary to the Revised Election Code as the latter does not specially provide the contrary. Alternatively, Section 2 of Act No. 3326 also provides for interruption when proceedings are instituted. The Court expressly overruled the doctrine in People vs. Coquia and reaffirmed the doctrine in People vs. Olarte that the filing of a complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation interrupts the period of prescription, even if the court where it is filed cannot try the case on its merits. The petition for certiorari and prohibition was denied.