1. Bienvenido Dino v. Olivarez GR No.

170447

FACTS:
 Petitioners Bienvenido Dio and Renato Comparativo assail the Decision of the Court of appeals in nullifying the
Orders in Criminal Cases No. 04-1104 and No. 04-1105.
IN THE RTC:
 Petitioners instituted a complaint for vote buying against respondent Pablo Olivarez. Based on the finding of
probable cause in the Joint Resolution issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Antonietta Pablo-Medina, with
the approval of the city prosecutor of Paranaque, two Informations were filed before the RTC charging
respondent Pablo Olivarez with Violation of of the Omnibus Election Code.
 Respondent then filed before the Law Department of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) an appeal of the
Joint Resolution of the City Prosecutor of Paranaque City with Motion to Revoke Continuing Authority.
 Respondent argued that the pendency of the appeal of the Joint Resolution before the COMELEC should
prevent the filing of the Informations before the RTC as there could be no final finding of probable cause until
the COMELEC had resolved the appeal. Moreover, he argued that the charges made against him were
groundless.
 Subsequently, the COMELEC directed the city prosecutor to transmit or elevate the entire records of the case and
to suspend further implementation of the Joint Resolution until final resolution of the said appeal before the
COMELEC en banc.
 On 11 October 2004, respondent filed a Motion to Quash the two criminal informations on the ground that more
than one offense was charged therein, in violation of Section 3(f), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, in relation to
Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Arraignment was reset.
 Before RTC Judge could act on the motion to quash, Assistant Prosecutor Pablo-Medina, with the approval of the
city prosecutor, filed its Opposition to the Motion to Quash and Motion to Admit Amended Informations.
 The Amended Informations sought to be admitted charged respondent with violation of only paragraph a, in
relation to paragraph b, of Section 261, Article XXII of the Omnibus Election Code.*
 Hearing was reset.
 Respondent filed an Opposition to the Admission of the Amended Informations, arguing that no resolution was
issued to explain the changes therein, particularly the deletion of paragraph k, Section 261, Article XXII of the
Omnibus Election Code . Moreover, he averred that the city prosecutor was no longer empowered to amend the
informations, since the COMELEC had already directed it to transmit the entire records of the case and suspend
the hearing of the cases before the RTC until the resolution of the appeal before the COMELEC en banc.
 RTC denied respondents Motion to Quash and admitted the Amended Informations.
 Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied upon his absence in the
arraignment. RTC Judge ordered the arrest of respondent and the confiscation of the cash bond.
 Unperturbed, respondent filed an “Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Lift the Order of Arrest of Accused
Dr. Pablo Olivarez,” which was denied. The Order directed that a bench warrant* be issued for the arrest of
respondent to ensure his presence at his arraignment.
 Law Department of the COMELEC moved (1) that the RTC hold in abeyance further proceedings in Criminal
Cases until the COMELEC has acted on respondents appeal; and (2) to revoke the authority of the city prosecutor
of Paranaque to prosecute the case, designating therein the lawyers from the Law Department of the COMELEC
to prosecute Criminal Cases.
IN THE CA
 Respondent filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, assailing the Orders of the
RTC.
 The appellate court granted the appeal in a Decision, declaring that the COMELEC had the authority to conduct
the preliminary investigation of election offenses and to prosecute the same. As such, the COMELEC may
delegate such authority to the Chief State Prosecutor, provincial prosecutors, and city prosecutors. The
COMELEC, however, has the corresponding power, too, to revoke such authority to delegate. Thus, the
categorical order of the COMELEC to suspend the prosecution of the case before the RTC effectively
deprived the city prosecutor of the authority to amend the two informations.
 The appellate court also pronounced that RTC Judge erred in admitting the amended informations, since they
were made in excess of the delegated authority of the public prosecutor, and his orders to arrest the respondent
and to confiscate the latters cash bond were devoid of legal basis.
IN THE SC
 Hence, the present petition under Rule 65
 At the outset, it should be noted that the appropriate remedy for petitioners is to file a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as petitioners aver
in their Manifestation and Motion dated 9 January 2006. However, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading
the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, this Court has decided to treat the present petition for certiorari as
having been filed under Rule 45, especially considering that it was filed within the reglementary period for the
same.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Office of the City Prosecutor of Paraaque had acted in excess of its jurisdiction when
it filed the Amended Informations, and whether Judge Madrona had acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he
admitted the said Amended Informations and denied the respondents motion to quash;

RULING: No. The public prosecutors, in filing the Amended Informations, did not exceed the authority delegated by the
COMELEC. Resolution No. 7457, which effectively revoked the deputation of the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Paraaque, was issued on 4 April 2005, after the Amended Informations were filed on 28 October 2004. The letter
dated 11 October 2004, written by Director Alioden D. Dalaig of the COMELEC Law Department, did not revoke the
continuing authority granted to the City Prosecutor of Paraaque.

Moreover. the court then acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. who posted bail bonds after the trial court issued a Warrant of Arrest on 4 October 2004. conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another. But petitioner threatened to attack Amando with his bolo.  Petitioner however has a different version. The filing of an information in the trial court initiates a criminal action. By filing the Amended Informations. The instructions of the COMELEC. engage in vote buying activities on election day of May 10. a candidate for the City Mayor of Paraaque. ran after Isagani who was able to reach home and elude his attackers. 04-1104 That on or about the 10th day of May 2004. for the arrest of the respondent due to his failure to be present for his arraignment and for the confiscation of his cash bond. NOTE: Criminal Case No. He left to check on his son. According to him. a thing of value. Remedios Malibaran. which he claimed was licensed. the above-named accused. the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused Carmelo Jaro. CA GR No. While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court. assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals which set aside the resolution of the Secretary of Justice ordering the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite to file an Information for Illegal Possession of Firearms against private respondents Amando Ocampo and Isagani Ocampo. in the letter dated 11 October 2004. a candidate for the City Mayor of Paraaque. 2000 FACTS: Noel Advincula. Judge Madrona acted in accordance with law when he admitted these Informations and dismissed the respondents Motion to Quash. and delay the administration of justice. however. which would have forced the COMELEC to re-file the cases. on 1 October 1993 he and his friends were having a conversation outside his house when Isagani passed by and shouted at them. and confronted petitioner who continued drinking with his friends. as the ground stated there in the informations charged more than one offense could no longer be sustained. Then Isagani left but returned with his father Amando and brother Jerry. Advincula v. 2004.  Petitioner. Philippines. armed with a bolo. did then and there willfully. that petitioner had chased his son with a bolo. 2004. Consequently. As such. in violation of Omnibus Election Code. In the Provincial Prosecutor. by distributing or giving Uniwide gift certificates. father of Isagani. rather it was an act necessitated by the developments of the case. the filing of the Amended Informations cannot in any way be considered improper. once the case has been brought to court. Thus. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Respondent filed a Motion to Quash on 11 October 2004 on the ground that more than one offense was charged therein Since the Rules of Court provided for a remedy that would avert the dismissal of the complaints on the ground that more than one offense was charged (RULE 110). .  A certain Enrique Rosas told private respondent Amando Ocampo.The filing of the Amended Informations was not made in defiance of these instructions by the COMELEC. 04-1105 That on or about the 10th day of May. conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another. dated 9 March 2005 and 31 March 2005. in violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Criminal Case No. thus. a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court. and the respondent. the public prosecutor had avoided such an undesirable situation. unlawfully and feloniously. he saw petitioner's drinking companions firing at petitioner's house. Philippines. the precautionary measure taken by the public prosecutor was clearly not intended to disobey the COMELEC. the above-named accused. After the filing of the complaint or the information. Later. in this petition for review. a thing of value. 131144. Amando then got his . and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.22 caliber gun. Cooler heads intervened and Amando was pacified. the instant appeal is GRANTED. When the accused voluntarily submits himself to the court or is duly arrested. in the City of Paraaque. the public prosecutor filed the Amended Informations. did then and there willfully. The trial court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. thus prompting the latter to aim his gun upwards and fire a warning shot. hitting petitioner's residence in the process. not to have the public prosecutor abandon the prosecution of the case and negligently allow its dismissal by not filing the Amended Informations. or to flout its authority or diminish its powers to review the appealed Joint Resolution. This led to a heated argument between him and Isagani. by distributing or giving Uniwide gift certificates. leaving the COMELEC in a quandary should it later dismiss the appeal before it. as consideration to induce or influence the voters to vote for candidate Pablo Olivarez. whatever disposition the fiscal may feel is proper in the case should be addressed to the consideration of the trial court WHEREFORE. Isagani and Amando were each armed with a gun and started firing at petitioner who ran home to avoid harm but private respondents Isagani and Amando continued shooting. no abuse of discretion can be attributed to Judge Madrona when he issued the Orders. Carmelo Jaro and Pablo Olivarez. 2.  Private respondent Isagani Ocampo was on his way home when petitioner Noel Advincula and two (2) of his drinking companions started shouting invectives at him and challenging him to a fight. These Orders are consistent with criminal procedure. 18. were clearly intended to allow sufficient time to reconsider the merit of the Joint Resolution. In this case. Oct. engage in vote buying activities on election day of May 10. . as consideration to induce or influence the voters to vote for candidate Pablo Olivarez. waste government resources. in the City of Paraaque. unlawfully and feloniously. Remedios Malibiran and Pablo Olivarez. 2004.

the Information was already filed by the Provincial Prosecutor with the . there was no convincing evidence that he was in possession of a gun during the incident involving him. as presented by both petitioner and private respondents. the possession of said firearm cannot be considered illegal or unlawful as the same is covered by a firearm license duly issued by the chief of the Firearm and Explosives Office. and clearly. The requisite evidence for convicting a person of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms is not needed at this point. It should be noted that when the Petition was filed. would constitute a violation of PD 1866. A series of criminal complaints were filed by petitioner on one hand and private respondents on the other. The determination of its existence lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after conducting a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party. except for the eyewitness account of petitioner and one Federico San Miguel. as to private respondent Isagani Ocampo. In the RTC and CA  Pursuant to the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. The Secretary of Justice. there was no proof that he had the necessary permit to carry it outside his residence. in his contested Resolution.  The Secretary of Justice granted petitioner's appeal and ordered the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite to file the corresponding charges of Illegal Possession of Firearms against private respondents. for purposes of filing criminal information. And probable cause. we need to address these questions: (a) Was there sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges for Illegal Possession of Firearms against private respondents. Second. No guns were seized or recovered from them. he had the requisite license to possess the firearm. The procedure is in no wise in the nature of a trial that will finally adjudicate the guilt or innocence of private respondents. Private respondents filed their opposition thereto stating in essence that Amando's gun was licensed and that there was no proof other than petitioner's self-serving statement that Isagani had carried a firearm. private respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with a prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals questioning the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. The existence of the subject firearm and the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the same. the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite filed two (2) separate Informations against Amando and Isagani Ocampo for Illegal Possession of Firearms before the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor. thus made the following findings: Even if Amando had the requisite license. Assuming arguendo that the Secretary of Justice was not able to establish probable cause to direct the Provincial Prosecutor to file the charges of Illegal Possession of Firearms against private respondents. the Court of Appeals agreed with the position of the Solicitor General (Provincial Prosecutor).  On 17 December 1996. the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements thereof. the filing of the Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals was not the proper remedy for private respondents. which was established by sufficient evidence on record. the rulings relied upon by the Court of Appeals and private respondents deal with the quantum of evidence needed to convict persons for Illegal Possession of Firearms. It is enough that the Secretary of Justice found that the facts. Besides. with the approval of the Provincial Prosecutor. Their decisions are reviewable by the Secretary of Justice who may direct the filing of the corresponding information or to move for the dismissal of the case. as to private respondent Amando Ocampo. dismissed Petitioner's complaint against private respondents for Illegal Possession of Firearms for lack of evidence. the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor. Negative allegation of the lack of a license is an essential ingredient of the offense which the prosecution must prove.  In crimes involving illegal possession of firearms. It could not therefore be ascertained with verisimilitude that petitioners did not have the license to possess or carry guns. Hence. These are findings of fact supported by evidence which cannot be disturbed by this Court. stating that the weakness of the case against petitioners is highlighted by the failure of the Information to allege the identity of the firearms allegedly possessed by petitioners at the time of the incident. has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. ISSUE: whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting private respondents' petition and in setting aside the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. Cavite.  Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice insisting that the pieces of evidence he presented before the Provincial Prosecutor were sufficient to make a prima facie case against private respondents and prayed that the dismissal of his complaint be set aside. But the controversy in this petition arose from the complaint filed by petitioner on 5 April 1994 for Illegal Possession of Firearms against private respondents before the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite. There is no corpus delicti.  After private respondents submitted their counter-affidavits. it was error for the Court of Appeals to grant private respondents' petition for certiorari. This petition arose from a case which was still in its preliminary stages. and Isagani's plain denial could not overcome his positive identification by petitioner that he carried a firearm in assaulting him. RULING: In determining this question.  How could the people prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioners committed the offense of illegal possession of firearms when the firearms are not even identified with certainty? Hence. this petition. his father and petitioner. and (b) May the Court of Appeals set aside the Decision of the Secretary of Justice when the corresponding Information has already been filed with the trial court? The Court of Appeals found that no charges for Illegal Possession of Firearms could be filed against private respondents for two (2) reasons: First. the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in directing the filing of criminal Informations against private respondents. the issue being whether there was probable cause to hold private respondents for trial. According to the Provincial Prosecutor. Court of Appeals (Complaint is dismissed)  In giving due course to private respondents' petition.

The remedy from the adverse resolution of the Ombudsman is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. It also alleged that the Chairman of Bagumbayan. as they were under-collateralized and Bagumbayan was undercapitalized at the time the loans were granted.A. cannot be resorted to when there are other remedies available. Jr. Garcia. d) the stockholders. Consultant of the Fact. After examining and studying the loan transactions. and Rafael A. The criminal case commenced from that time at its course would now be under the direction of the trial court. and representing the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). WHEREFORE. respondents Aguirre. Jose Tengco. filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a sworn complaint for violation of Sections 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act (R. 13 creating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (Committee) which was tasked to inventory all behest loans. Pacifico Marcos.  On November 9. SO ORDERED. Pacifico Marcos. but the Ombudsman denied it. 139296 This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the Memorandum of then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto. g) the non-feasibility of the project for which financing is being sought. the Ombudsman DISMISSED the instant complaint against the respondents for insufficiency of evidence and for prescription for all the respondents and an additional ground of death for respondents Aguirre. when the determination of probable cause is done with grave abuse of discretion. Virata." to wit: "a) it is undercollaterized. Regional Trial Court of Bacoor. whether behest or non-behest. 3.V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No.. FACTS:  President Fidel V. and. President Ramos issued Memorandum Order No. or where it is necessary for the courts to do so for the orderly administration of justice or to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner.  After evaluating the evidence submitted by the Committee. (Main issue which involves rule 110) 2. Whether or not the case is barred by prescription. Desierto et al GR No. preliminary or final. or where a sham preliminary investigation was hastily conducted. Certiorari. Marcos and Virata. Placido Mapa. Vice-Chairman J. . and the Order denying their motion for reconsideration. officers or agents of the borrower corporation are identified as cronies. Orlando L. Dr. 61 expanding the functions of the Committee to include the inventory and review of all non-performing loans. We must point out that a petition for review on certiorari is not the proper mode by which resolutions of the Ombudsman in preliminary investigations of criminal cases are reviewed by this Court. 1992. Sison (private respondents)  Pending resolution of the case. It is well settled that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunction.) No. Hence. subject to certain exceptions. b) the borrower corporation is undercapitalized. and the officials of the DBP. Cavite.[9] not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against Tomas Aguirre. Jr. e. Hence. RULING: Before addressing the issues raised in the present petition. the Committee determined that they bore the characteristics of a behest loan. setting aside the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. was the brother of then President Ferdinand Marcos. f) the use of corporate layering. Ofelia Castell. the Court of Appeals erred in granting private respondents' Petition for Certiorari and.Finding Committee.  The Memorandum set the following criteria to show the earmarks of a "behest loan. c) a direct or indirect endorsement by high government officials like presence of marginal notes. de Ocampo. Whatever irregularity in the proceedings the private parties may raise should be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court which has already acquired jurisdiction over the case.g. e) a deviation of use of loan proceeds from the purpose intended.  The Committee added that there was undue haste in the approval of these loans. PCGG v. worse. this petition ISSUES: 1. None of these exceptions is present in the instant case.  The Committee ascribes legal error and grave abuse of discretion to the Ombudsman for dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence and on the ground of prescription. Private respondents could file a Motion to Quash the Information under Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. Leonides S. Atty. Dr."  Among the accounts referred to the Committees Technical Working Group (TWG) for investigation were the loan transactions between Bagumbayan Corporation (Bagumbayan) and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). namely: Recio M. Salvador. dismissing the complaint filed by petitioners against private respondents. the instant petition for review is GRANTED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED.  Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.. we note that what was filed before this Court is a petition captioned as a Petition for Review on Certiorari. determine the parties involved and recommend whatever appropriate actions to be pursued thereby. being an extraordinary writ. h) the extraordinary speed in which the loan release was made. Whether or not Public Respondent committed jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion when he dismissed the charge against the private respondents on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Marcos and Virata died. or let the trial proceed where they can either file a demurrer to evidence or present their evidence to disprove the charges against them. In the Office of the Ombudsman  Consequently.

No. For one to be validly charged under Section 3(e) of R. It is basically his call. the documents submitted reveal that Dr. the Court shall respect such findings. he must have acted with manifest partiality. The Court shall first deal with the issue of prescription. finds the case dismissible. or that the approval was contrary to acceptable banking practices at that time. thus. There is no showing that the DBP Board of Governors did not exercise sound business judgment in approving the loans. 61 is insufficient to characterize the loan as a behest loan. Apparently. acted well within his discretion in rejecting petitioners claim. given its attendant facts and circumstances. determine the nature of the action. the date when the Committee was created. the discovery could not have been made earlier than October 8. we have treated differently labeled actions as special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 for acceptable reasons such as justice. 2. Marcos assumed chairmanship of Bagumbayan only on May 31. It is true that the Sworn Statement filed by Atty. were granted pursuant to the restructuring policy adopted in 1977 prior to the chairmanship of Dr. to be liable under Section 3(g). therefore. Even the Ombudsman in his Comment conceded that the prescriptive period commenced from the date the Committee discovered the crime. We have consistently refrained from interfering with the constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman. No. NO. This position of the Ombudsman is erroneous. However. 3019. Since the subject loans were obtained in 1974 to 1981. The Ombudsman. there must be a showing that respondents entered into a grossly disadvantageous contract on behalf of the government. petitioners utterly failed to show that the Ombudsmans action fits such a description. There appears absolutely no basis to conclude that these loans were extended simply because the officers were the cronies of the late President Marcos. or the participation of. It claims that the loans were under-collateralized and Bagumbayan was undercapitalized when the questioned loans were hastily granted. evident bad faith. 1. The subsequent loans. less than six years from the presumptive date of discovery. No manifest partiality. 61 was that Pacifico E. In any event. and fair play. the Ombudsman concluded that the offense allegedly committed by the respondents had already prescribed when the complaint was filed on February 28. 1998.A. The Committee insists that the loan transactions between DBP and Bagumbayan bore the characteristics of a behest loan. But as already adverted to. Marcos. or he may proceed with the investigation if. in his view. the records show that it was the Committee that discovered the same. However. Case law has it that the determination of probable cause against those in public office during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman. Finally. not the nomenclature given by the parties. 1992. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.A. equity. the only factor which would satisfy one of the criteria of a behest loan under Memorandum Order No. Marcos was the brother of the late President Marcos. Thus. evident bad faith. or inexcusable negligence. Dr. using professional judgment. be attributed to private respondents in approving the loans. 1998. Salvador did not specify the exact dates when the alleged offense was discovered. 3019. we note that petitioners did not specify the precise role played by. The Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as toamount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. The petitioners failed to satisfy either criterion. or that they colluded . In this instance. on other hand. if the Ombudsman. unless the exercise of such discretionary powers is tainted by grave abuse of discretion. The complaint was filed on February 28. we have decided to treat this petition as one filed under Rule 65 since a reading of its contents reveals that petitioners impute grave abuse of discretion and reversible legal error to the Ombudsman for dismissing the complaint. 1978. and not from the date the loan documents were registered with the Register of Deeds. It is true that all offenses penalized by the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act prescribe in fifteen (15) years. Thus. In previous rulings. On the other hand. It is clear from the records that private respondents studied and evaluated the loan applications of Bagumbayan before approving them. Marcos did not play a key role in the approval of the questioned transactions. There were no circumstances indicating a common criminal design of either the officers of DBP or Bagumbayan. therefore. As such. The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case. the criminal offense allegedly committed by the private respondents had not yet prescribed when the complaint was filed. the complaint is in due and proper form and substance. each of the private respondents in the alleged violation of R. long after the approval of the questioned original and first additional loans. ostensibly an identified crony. After all. or gross inexcusable negligence can. As pointed out by the Ombudsman. the averments in the complaint. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith should he find it to be insufficient in form or substance. should be filed or not. the presence of only one criterion out of the eight enumerated in Memorandum Order No.

unless provided in such acts. the complaint may be filed only with the office of the fiscal. the prosecution contends that the prescriptive period was suspended upon the filing of the complaint against her with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. and People of the Philippines GR No. . Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months. Agreeing with the respondent judge. (Emphasis supplied. and if the same be not known at the time. the petitioner: FIRST argues that the charge against her is governed by the following provisions of the Rule on Summary Procedure.00). from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. .) 1 Act. b) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. petitioner argues that Act No. The prosecution contends that the prescriptive period was suspended upon the filing of the complaint against her with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. in Metropolitan Manila and other chartered cities. Criminal Cases Xxx 3. the charge against her should have been dismissed on the ground of prescription. or a complaint with the fiscal's office. October 19. 2.The offense was allegedly committed.) xxx NEXT. or of the civil liability arising therefrom. 3326." reading as follows: Sec. Agreeing with the respondent judge. accessory or otherwise. convinced that he does not possess the necessary evidence to secure a conviction. . the petition is DISMISSED. 1. (Emphasis supplied . Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. by filing the complaint directly with the said courts. The petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed. Scope — This rule shall govern the procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts. . the Solicitor General also invokes Section 1. and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases: B.000. the Municipal Trial Courts. The Ombudsman can hardly be faulted for not wanting to proceed with the prosecution of the offense. by filing the complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation therein. 1990 . 1. 4. 2. or both. providing as follows: Sec. Violations of municipal or city ordinances. Note that the penalty for such violations CANNOT exceed six (6) months. The assailed Memorandum and Order of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-98-0402. 1990 (5 months after filing of complaint in fiscal’s office) -The corresponding Information was filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez. or a fine of one thousand pesos (P1. 3. 4. Appellate Court Decision: RTC sustains denial. SO ORDERED. and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. Specifying the prescriptive period for violations of municipal ordinances. The prescription shall be interrupted when PROCEEDINGS (JUDICIAL) are INSTITUTED against the guilty person. as amended. Violations penalized by special acts shall. 3.1 the law establishing prescriptive periods for violations penalized by special acts and municipal ordinances which also provides when such periods begin to run and when the same will be interrupted. SC holds otherwise. In the present petition for review on certiorari. Sec. For the purposes of this Act. Lower Court Decision: MTC denies motion to quash.R. special acts shall be acts defining and penalizing violations of law not included in the Penal Code. the Solicitor General also invokes Section 1. 102342.. Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. entitled "An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run. accordingly treats the Information against her as having been filed way beyond the two-month statutory period from the date of the alleged commission of the offense. Reyes Jr. 2. On October 2. (Emphasis supplied. are AFFIRMED.The referral-complaint of the police was received by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. 1990 . Sec. . Rizal. FACTS: The petitioner is charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor's permit in violation of Ordinance No. WHEREFORE. prescribe in accordance with the following rules: . July 3. 3326. 1. whose scope includes: Sec. irrespective of other imposable penalties. 2004 . the institution of criminal action shall be as follows: a) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Nos. Series of 1988. to cause undue injury to the government by giving unwarranted benefits to Bagumbayan. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offenses charged does not exceed six months imprisonment. However. For its part. Zaldivia v. How Instituted — For offenses NOT subject to the rule on summary procedure in special cases.-That the filing of a complaint with the fiscals office suspends the running of the prescriptive period of a criminal offense). On May 30. Timeline: 1. G. of the Municipality of Rodriguez. No. On May 11. In all cases such institution interrupts the period of prescription of the offense charged. 118757 & 121571. CA. (NOTE: The position of the fiscal seems to be in accordance with the doctrine of Brillante v. 1992 Rule on Summary Procedure applies to violations of municipal ordinances.

the case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court. As it is clearly provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure that among the offenses it covers are violations of municipal or city ordinances. Our conclusion is that the prescriptive period for the crime imputed to the petitioner commenced from its alleged commission on May 11." the obvious reference is to Section 32(2) of B. In case of conflict. the prosecution in the instant case is for violation of a municipal ordinance. vesting in such courts. Rule 110.These offenses are not covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. or both such fine and imprisonment. 3326 which says that the period of prescription shall be suspended "when proceedings are instituted against the guilty party." Both parties agree that this provision does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to. This interpretation conforms to the canon that words in a statute should be read in relation to and not isolation from the rest of the measure. as this was not a judicial proceeding. is not allowed to "diminish. (Specifically.P. Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure DOES NOT APPLY to violations of municipal ordinances. Section 5(5) of the Constitution. Rule on Summary Procedure provides that the case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court. as the offense involved was grave oral defamation punishable under the Revised Penal Code with arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period.Emphasis is laid on the LAST PARAGRAPH. 1990. in the exercise of its rule-making power. whether or not the prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary investigation. and ended two months thereafter. it does not apply to offenses which falls under Summary Procedure. should. Provided." contrary to the submission of the Solicitor General that they include administrative proceedings. that is. as petitioner argues) HELD: No... irrespective of kind. Where paragraph (b) of the Section 1 Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure does speak of "offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. and is thus covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. Going back to the Francisco case. . including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon.. in accordance with Section 1 of Act No. Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right. The judicial proceeding that could have interrupted the period was the filing of the information with the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez.“that the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court. Section 1. Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. the Court feels that if there be a conflict between the Rule on Summary Procedure and Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. 3 (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months. His contention is that we must not distinguish as the law does not distinguish." The proceedings referred to in Section 2 thereof are "judicial proceedings." which plainly signifies that the section does NOT apply to offenses which are subject to summary procedure. increase or modify substantive rights" under Article VIII.3 These offenses are not covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. The respondent maintains that the filing of the complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor comes under the phrase "such institution" and that the phrase "in all cases" applies to all cases. we find it relevant to observe that the decision would have been conformable to Section 1. however. the latter must again yield because this Court. This means that the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that. interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility. "for offenses NOT subject to the rule on summary procedure in special cases. which is for violation of a municipal ordinance of Rodriguez. The LAST PARAGRAPH of Section 1. but this was done only on October 2. was an adoption of the doctrine in Francisco v. the Rule on Summary Procedure as a special law (SPECIAL RULE) prevails over Section 1. Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure must yield to Act No. is governed by that Rule and not Section 1 of Rule 110. instead of the Rule on Summary Procedure. for having applied Section 1. 3326 At any rate. No. Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure applies to violations of municipal ordinances. those offenses NOT governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure. 3326. whether or not the CA erred in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the Information on the ground of prescription. Section 1. That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not exceed twenty thousand pesos. even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation. 1990. WHEREFORE. or a fine of not more than four thousand pesos. As a matter of fact. for which the penalty cannot exceed six months. Rule 110. and does. ISSUE: Whether or not Section 1. or amount thereof. 1990. to discover the true legislative intent. on July 11. However. including those falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure.”2 However. the petition is GRANTED. it should follow that the charge against the petitioner.. It was not interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor on May 30. regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties. 1990. value. "the complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation. And if there be a conflict between Act. 129. 3326 and Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Running of prescriptive period tolls on the date of filing in court Under Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure. . By contrast. This interpretation is in consonance with the afore-quoted Act No. The phrase "in all cases" appearing in the LAST PARAGRAPH obviously refers to the cases covered by the Section. even if the court where the complaint or information is filed can not try the case on its merits. nature. the former should prevail as the special law. after the crime had already prescribed. No. as argued by respondent. without distinction. it does. Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure meaningfully begins with the phrase. Court of Appeals .