G.R. No. 152662 June 13, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
vs.
MA. THERESA
PANGILINAN
FACTS:
Virginia Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa and
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.22 against the respondent, Pangilinan on
September 16, 1997 with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
On December 5, 1997, a civil case was commenced by
Pangilinan against Malolos for accounting, recovery of commercial documents,
enforceability and effectivity of contract and specific performance before the
Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City.
Five days thereafter or on December 10, 1997, Pangilinan
filed a “Petition to Suspend Proceedings on the Ground of Prejudicial Question”
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, citing as basis the
pendency of the civil action she filed with the RTC of Valenzuela City. The
City Prosecutor approved the petition upon the recommendation of the assistant
City Prosecutor on March 2, 1998.
Malolos appealed the decision of the City Prosecutor to the
Department of Justice. On January 5, 1999, reversed the resolution of the City
Prosecutor and ordered the filing of informations on violations of Batas
Pambansa Blg.22. Said cases were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City on November 18, 1999.
Pangilinan filed an “Omnibus
Motion to Quash the Information and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest”
before MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon City. She
alleged that her criminal liability has been extinguished by reason of
prescription.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not prescription has set in.
HELD:
No,
the action has not prescribed.
Act No.
3326 entitled “An Act to Establish Prescription for Violations of Special Acts
and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin,” as
amended, is the law applicable to BP Blg. 22 cases. Appositely, the law
reads:
SECTION 1. Violations penalized by special acts
shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the
following rules: (a) xxx; (b) after four years for those punished by
imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) xxx.
SECTION 2. Prescription shall begin to run from
the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not
known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
Since BP Blg. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of
imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by
a fine for its violation, it therefor prescribes in four (4) years in
accordance with the aforecited law. The running of the prescriptive
period, however, should be tolled upon the institution of proceedings against
the guilty person.