JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS v.
JUDGE LIDUA FACTS:
G.R. No. 169588, October 7, 2013
PETITIONER: JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION
RESPONDENTS: HON. JUDGE NELSON F. LIDUA SR.
Recit Ready: Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation (Jadewell) is a private parking
operator duly authorized to operate and manage the parking spaces in Baguio City
pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000. Respondents are two sets of individuals found
by Jadewell on separate occasions to be parking illegally, prompting Jadewell to
place metal clamps on a wheel of each car. In both occasions, respondents
dismantled the clamp and carried it away on the vehicle. Jadewell filed charges of
robbery but was dismissed due to lack of probable cause. On May 23, Jadewell filed
an affidavit-complaint charging respondents of a violation of the city parking
ordinance mentioned. On October 2, almost five months after, an information was
filed by the city prosecutor. Respondents filed a Motion to Quash the information on
the grounds that criminal action has already prescribed after two months from the
discovery of the crime per Act No. 3326. Petitioner Jadewell filed a petition for
review under Rule 65 averring that the prescription was interrupted when they filed a
complaint on May 23, mere days after the prescription period commenced, per the
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The Supreme Court ruled that what applies in this case is the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure and not Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure because
the former is a special law. It states that only the filing of an Information tolls the
prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance. This is
consonant with the provisions of Act No. 3326 which state that "prescription shall be
interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person" as it is decided
in Zaldivia v. Reyes that for violation of ordinances, "proceedings" here refer to
judicial proceedings.
Doctrine: A case for the violation of ordinances, whether city or municipal, is
instituted by the filing of information in court. While the language of Rule 110 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that filing a complaint institutes criminal
action, the rule shall yield to any special law. Thus, violations of municipal
or city ordinances, being covered by the Rule on Summary Proceedings, shall be
governed by the same and not Rule 110.
● Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation (Jadewell) is a private parking operator
duly authorized to operate and manage the parking spaces in Baguio City pursuant to
City Ordinance 003-2000.
● May 7 and 17, 2003: Two incidents, two sets of accused (except one guy
participated in both), same act — they dismantled and carried away the immobilizing
metal clamp on their car which was placed when they were found illegally parked by
Jadewel
● Jadewell filed charges for robbery but no probable cause was found since there
was no intent to gain nor was there force upon things in each incident.
● May 23: Jadewell filed an affidavit-complaint charging respondents with a
violation of the city parking ordinance above.
● October 2: Information was filed by the city prosecutor to the MTC.
● The respondents filed a Motion to Quash the information given that the action has
prescribed. Prescription for violation of city ordinances is two months. Action was
filed almost five months after.
ISSUE:W/N the prescriptive period was tolled by the complainant’s filing of the
affidavit complaint, given that the complained act is a violation of a city ordinance.
NO
RATIO: Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure:
x x x "criminal actions shall be instituted x x x in x x x other chartered cities, the
complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided
in their charter" and the last paragraph thereof states that "the institution of the
criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription of the offense
charged unless otherwise provided in special laws.
Sec 11 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (special law):
How commenced. — The filing of criminal cases falling within the scope of this
Rule shall be either by complaint or by information: Provided, however, that in
Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities, such cases shall be commenced
only by information, x x x.
Section 2, paragraph 2 of Act No. 3326
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the
guilty person, x x x.
The resolution of this case requires an examination of both the substantive law and
the procedural rules governing the prosecution of the offense. With regard to the
prescription period, Act No. 3326, as amended, is the only statute that provides for
any prescriptive period for the violation of special laws and municipal ordinances.
No other special law provides any other prescriptive period, and the law does not
provide any other distinction. Petitioner may not argue that Act No. 3326 as
amended does not apply.
In Romualdez v. Hon. Marcelo, this Court defined the parameters of prescription: In
resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following should be
considered: (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time the
period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time the prescriptive period was
interrupted.
Unfortunately, when the Office of the Prosecutor filed the Informations on October
5, 2003, the period had already prescribed. Thus, respondent Judge Nestor Lidua, Sr.
did not err when he ordered the dismissal of the case against respondents. According
to the Department of Justice National Prosecutors Service Manual for Prosecutors,
an Information is defined under Part I, Section 5 as: SEC. 5. Information. - An
information is the accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the prosecutor, and filed with the court. The information need not be
placed under oath by the prosecutor signing the same.
The Rule on Summary Procedure prevails over Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure since the former is a special law. Moreover, the Rule on Summary
Procedure is in consonance with Act No. 3326 which states that prescription is
suspended when proceedings are instituted against the guilty party. Zaldivia v. Reyes
clarified that for violation of ordinances, proceedings herein refer to judicial
proceedings, which is commenced by the filing of information in court.

In any case, the Rules of Criminal Procedure must yield to Act No. 3326 given that
With regard to the period of prescription, it is now without question that it is two the Supreme Court “in the exercise of its rule-making power, is not allowed to
months for the offense charged under City Ordinance 003-2000. diminish, increase or modify substantive rights” per the Constitution.

The offense was committed on May 7, 2003 and was discovered by the attendants of
the petitioner on the same day. These actions effectively commenced the running of
the prescription period. DISPOSITION:

As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED.
Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an
ordinance. The respondent judge was correct when he applied the rule in Zaldivia v.
Reyes. In Zaldivia v. Reyes, the violation of a municipal ordinance in Rodriguez,
Rizal also featured similar facts and issues with the present case. In that case, the
offense was committed on May 11, 1990. The Complaint was received on May 30,
1990, and the Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Rodriguez
on October 2, 1990.

Under Section 9 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, "the complaint or information

shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or
preliminary investigation." Both parties agree that this provision does not prevent the
prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to. However, the
case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the
prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary investigation. 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.

Jurisprudence exists showing that when the Complaint is filed with the Office of the
Prosecutor who then files the Information in court, this already has the effect of
tolling the prescription period.