Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People Vs Pangilinan
People Vs Pangilinan
FACTS:
In defense of her claim, Pangilinan said that the prevailing law that governs the
prescription of special penal law, B.P. 22, is Section 2 of Act No. 3326 (An Act To
Establish Periods Of Prescription For Violations Penalized By Special Acts) where the
right to file an action to a “proper court” and not to merely to prosecution office for
B.P. 22, prescribes four (4) years from the commission of the crime. The imputed
violation occurred sometime in 1995, and only on February 3, 2000 that a case was
formally filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court, therefore the action already
prescribes. RTC granted the motion.
On the other hand, the complainant argued that the filing with the office of city
prosecutor constitutes an interruption to the prescription.
ISSUE:
HELD:
YES. Following a catena of cases, the court held that, there is no more distinction
between cases under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and those covered by special
laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription; that the
institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation in the office of prosecutor
against accused interrupts the period of prescription.
Following the factual finding the crime was committed sometime in 1995, the filing
of complaint on September 1997, two (2) years from the commission of the crime
validly interrupts the running of prescription. Therefore the action against the
respondent Pangilinan did not prescribe.