Jadewell Vs Lidua

Effect of institution of the criminal action on the prescriptive period
JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION represented by its manager and authorized

representative Norma Tan, Petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE NELSON F. LIDUA SR., Presiding Judge of The
Municipal Trial Court Branch 3, Baguio City, BENEDICTO BALAJADIA, EDWIN ANG, "JOHN DOES"
and "PETER DOES" Respondents.
October 7, 2013 G.R. No. 169588 LEONEN, J.:
RECIT READY SYNOPSIS

Relevant Fact: Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation (Jadewell) is a private parking operator duly
authorized to operate and manage the parking spaces in Baguio City pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000.
Respondents are two sets of individuals found by Jadewell on separate occasions to be parking illegally,
prompting Jadewell to place metal clamps on a wheel of each car. In both occasions, respondents dismantled
the clamp and carried it away on the vehicle. Jadewell filed charges of robbery but was dismissed due to lack
of probable cause. On May 23, Jadewell filed an affidavit- complaint charging respondents of a violation of the
city parking ordinance mentioned. On October 2, almost five months after, an information was filed by the city
prosecutor. Respondents filed a Motion to Quash the information on the grounds that criminal action has
already prescribed after two months from the discovery of the crime per Act No. 3326. Petitioner Jadewell filed
a petition for review under Rule 65 averring that the prescription was interrupted when they filed a complaint
on May 23, mere days after the prescription period commenced, per the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Relevant Issue: Whether or not the prescriptive period was interrupted by the complainant’s filing of the
affidavit complaint, given that the complained act is a violation of a city ordinance.
Held: NO. The Supreme Court ruled that what applies in this case is the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure and not Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure because the former is a special law. It states
that only the filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an
ordinance. This is consonant with the provisions of Act No. 3326 which state that "prescription shall be
interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person" as it is decided in Zaldivia v. Reyes that
for violation of ordinances, "proceedings" here refer to judicial proceedings.
Relevant Provisions / Concept / Doctrines

As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the
prescriptive period where the crime charged involved is an ordinance. For violation of a special law or
ordinance, the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day of the commission of the violation,
and if the same is not known at the time, from the discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or
information in court and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting
double jeopardy.
Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure:

x x x "criminal actions shall be instituted x x x in x x x other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with
the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charter" and the last paragraph thereof states
that "the institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription of the offense
charged unless otherwise provided in special laws.
Sec 11 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (special law):

How commenced. — The filing of criminal cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall be either by
complaint or by information: Provided, however, that in Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities, such
cases shall be commenced only by information, x x x.
Section 2, paragraph 2 of Act No. 3326

The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, x x x.
FACTS
1
Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation (Jadewell) is a private parking operator duly authorized to
operate and manage the parking spaces in Baguio City pursuant to a city ordinance. It is also authorized
under the said ordinance to render any motor vehicle immobile by placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle
is illegally parked.
In I.S. No. 2003-1997, Jadewell alleged in its Affidavit-Complaint that the respondents dismantled, took and
carried the clamp attached to their cars which was illegally parked. It was also alleged that the fines for illegal
parking and the declamping fee were not paid by respondents. The said offense was committed on May 7,
2003.
The Affidavit-Complaint was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23, 2003. A preliminary
investigation took place on May 28, 2003. On October 2, 2003, two Criminal Informations were filed with the
MTC-Baguio. Thereafter, respondents filed a Motion to Quash and/or Manifestation stating as ground
extinguishment of criminal action or liability due to prescription, among others. Petitioner then filed a Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the filing of the criminal complaint with the Office of the City
Prosecutor stopped the running of the two-month prescriptive period. Hence, the offenses charged have not
prescribed.
ISSUE
Did the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23, 2003 toll the
prescriptive period of the commission of the offense charged, given that the complained act is a
violation of a city ordinance?
RULING
NO. Prescription shall be interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in court since the
violation is an ordinance.
The offense was committed on May 7, 2003 and was discovered by the attendants of the petitioner on the
same day. These actions effectively commenced the running of the prescriptive period. The procedural rules
that govern this case are the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Under the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure, violations of municipal and city ordinances are within the coverage of the Revised Rules
on Summary Procedure.
The Rule on Summary Procedure prevails over Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure since the former
is a special law. As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an
Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged involved is an ordinance. The
prescription shall be interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in court and shall begin to run
again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy.
Moreover, the Rule on Summary Procedure is in consonance with Act No. 3326 which states that prescription
is suspended when proceedings are instituted against the guilty party. Zaldivia v. Reyes clarified that for
violation of ordinances, proceedings herein refer to judicial proceedings, which is commenced by the filing of
information in court.
In any case, the Rules of Criminal Procedure must yield to Act No. 3326 given that the Supreme Court “in the
exercise of its rule-making power, is not allowed to diminish, increase or modify substantive rights” per the
Constitution.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED.

Jadewell Vs Lidua

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jadewell Vs Lidua

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jadewell Vs Lidua

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of institution of the criminal action on the prescriptive period

JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION represented by its manager and authorized

October 7, 2013 G.R. No. 169588 LEONEN, J.:

RECIT READY SYNOPSIS

Relevant Provisions / Concept / Doctrines

Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure:

Sec 11 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (special law):

Section 2, paragraph 2 of Act No. 3326

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.