G.R. No. 125066 July 8, 1998
ISABELITA REODICA
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
A complaint charging petitioner, Isabelita
Reodica, with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property
and slight physical injuries was filed before the Fiscal’s office on October
20, 1987.
On January 13, 1988, an information was filed
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati charging the petitioner for the
abovementioned offense. The Regional Trial Court found the victim guilty as
charged, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial
Court.
On
appeal, the petitioner raised the defense of prescription.
ISSUE:
Whether or not prescription has set in.
HELD:
We cannot apply Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure,
which provides that in cases covered thereby, such as offenses punishable by
imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, as in the instant case, “the prosecution
commences by the filing of a complaint or information directly with the MeTC,
RTC or MCTC without need of a prior preliminary examination or investigation;
provided that in Metropolitan Manila and Chartered Cities, said cases may be
commenced only by information.” However, this Section cannot be
taken to mean that the prescriptive period is interrupted only by the filing of
a complaint or information directly with said courts.
It must be stressed that prescription in criminal cases is a
matter of substantive law. Pursuant to Section 5(5), Article VIII of
the Constitution, this Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, is not
allowed to diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Hence, in case
of conflict between the Rule on Summary Procedure promulgated by this Court and
the Revised Penal Code, the latter prevails.
In the instant case, as the offenses involved are covered by
the Revised Penal Code, Article 91 thereof and the rulings in Francisco and Cuaresma apply. Thus,
the prescriptive period for the quasi offenses in question was
interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the fiscal’s office three days
after the vehicular mishap and remained tolled pending the termination of this
case. We cannot, therefore, uphold petitioner’s defense of prescription
of the offenses charged in the information in this case.