Pangilinan issued 9 checks totaling P9,658,592 which were
People v. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan (Vi)
June 13, 2012 | Perez, J. | Prescription
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: Ma. Theresa Pangilinan
SUMMARY:
Pangilinan was charged with estafa and violations of BP 22 for issuing
checks (P9,658,592) which were dishonored. Malolos filed an affidavit-
complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22 with the Office of the City
Prosecutor on Sept. 16, 1997. On June 17, 2000 (the case wasn’t settled yet
at that time bec of other things filed: civil case, then recommended
suspension of crim proceedings bec of civil case, etc), Pangilinan filed a
motion to quash the information claiming that her liability has been
extinguished by prescription. CA said that the “proceeding” in Sec 2 of Act
3326 had to be a judicial proceeding and not one with the City Prosecutor.
The issue is whether the filing of complaint with the Office of the City
Prosecutor on Sept. 16, 1997 interrupted the period of prescription. The
Court ruled that it was interrupted by the filing of complaint with the Office
of the City Prosecutor. Jurisprudence shows that it is not limited to judicial
proceedings and complaints filed with the fiscal, or those for preliminary
investigation, or investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
suspend the running of the prescriptive period.
DOCTRINE: The proceedings that are instituted to interrupt the
prescription do not only refer to judicial proceedings. A complaint filed
with the Office of the City Prosecutor interrupts the running of the time.
FACTS:
1. OSG filed this petition for certiorari, praying for the nullification of
the decision of the CA which reversed the RTC of QC and dismissed
the criminal cases.
2. Virginia Malolos filed a complaint for estafa and violation of BP
22 against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan on Sept. 16, 1997, alleging that
dishonored.
3. On Dec. 5, 1997, Pangilinan filed a civil case for accounting,
recovery of commercial documents, specific performance, etc.
against Malolos. On Dec. 5, 1997, Pangilinan filed a “Petition to
Suspend Proceedings on the Ground of Prejudicial Question.
4. On March 2, 1998, Asst. City Prosecutor Catubay recommended the
suspension of criminal proceedings pending outcome of civil action
and this was approved by the City Prosecutor of QC.
5. On Jan. 5, 1999, Sec. of Justice Cuevas reversed the resolution of
City Prosecutor of QC and ordered the filing of informations.
6. Consequently, 2 counts of violation of BP 22 were filed on Nov 18,
1999 in MeTC QC.
7. On June 17, 2000, Pangilinan filed a motion to quash the
information saying that her liability has been extinguished by
prescription. MeTC granted this but RTC QC reversed stating that
it has not prescribed because the complaint was filed on Sept. 16,
1997 which interrupted it. CA reversed again saying that it
prescribed since Malolos had till latter part of 1999 to file her
complaint before the proper court.
8. CA reasoned that according to Zaldivia v. Reyes, the “proceedings”
mentioned in Sec 2 of Act 3326 are judicial proceedings. So it is
interrupted when it is actually filed in court.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the filing of the affidavit-complaint for estafa and
violations of BP 22 with the Office of the City Prosecutor on
Sept. 16, 1997 interrupted the period of prescription. – YES
RATIO:
1. CA erred in ruling that the offense committed had already
prescribed. Act No. 3326 on prescriptions is the applicable law to
BP 22 cases and it states that the prescriptive period is 4 years for
those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but
less than 2 years. BP 22 imposes a penalty of not less than 30 days
 but not more than 1 year or by fine which makes its prescriptive
period 4 years.
2. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should be tolled
upon institution of proceedings against the guilty person.
3. In People v. Olarte, it was ruled that a complaint filed for
preliminary investigation interrupts the proceedings. In Francisco
et al. v. CA, et. al., it was ruled that filing complaint with the Fiscal’s
office also suspends the running of the prescriptive period. In
Panaguiton Jr. v. DOJ, the Court also ruled that commencement of
proceedings for prosecution of the accused before the Office of
the City Prosecutor effectively interrupted the prescriptive period.
4. It was Pangilinan’s own motion to suspend the proceedings that
caused delay. As said in Olarte, it is unjust to deprive the injured
party of the right to obtain vindication on account of delays not
under his control.
5. Petition is GRANTED and the CA Decision is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. DOJ is ordered to re-file the informations for violation
of BP 22.