1.

People vs Bongcarawan
Facts:
Petitioner is charged with quarrying for commercial
purposes without a mayor’s permit – in violation of
Ordinance No.2, s. 1988, the Municipality of
Rodriguez, in the Province of Rizal.
Said paragraph, according to Judge Reyes, was an
adoption of the obiter dictum in Francisco vs CA:
where, the filing of the complaint in the Municipal
Court, even if it be merely for purposes of
preliminary examination or investigation should, and
does, interrupt the period of prescription of the
criminal responsibility.

The offense was allegedly committed on May 11,
1990
However, the referral-complaint of the police was
received by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Rizal on May 30, 1990.
The corresponding information was filed with the
Rodriguez MTC on October 2, 1990.
Zaldavia moved to quash the information on the
ground that the crime had already prescribed, but the
motion was denied by the MTC. The RTC of Rizal
also sustained the denial of the motion.
However, it is important to note that this decision was
promulgated on May 30, 1983, 2 months before the
promulgation of the Rules on Summary Procedure on
August 1, 1983. On the other hand, Section 1 of Rule
110 is new, having been incorporated therein with the
revision of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on
January 1, 1985, except for the last paragraph which
was added on October 1, 1988.
Issue: Whether the violation of municipal
ordinances are covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure. YES
Ruling:

Zaldavia argues that the charge against her is

governed by Section 1B(4) and Section 9 of the Rules
on Summary Procedure. (Refer to full text)

She then invokes Act No. 3326 – 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 –
specifically Section 1 of the said law which states that
violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall
prescribe after 2 months.

She concludes that since the information was filed

way beyond the 2-month statutory period from the
date of the alleged commission of the offense, the
charge against her should have been dismissed on the
ground of prescription.

However, prosecution contends that the prescriptive

period was suspended upon the filing of the
complaint against her with the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor.

The Sol Gen also invokes Section 1, Rule 110 of the

1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Respondent,
Judge Reyes maintains that the filing of the complaint
with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor comes
under the phrase “such institution” and that phrase “in
all cases” applies to all cases, without distinction,
including those falling under the Rules on Summary
Procedure.
2. People vs Salanguit

3. Soliven vs Makasair

4. Microsoft Corp vs Maxicorp

5. People vs CA

6. People vs Tiu Won Chua

7. People vs Priscella del Norte

8. Umili vs Ramos

9. People vs Nuevas

10. People vs del Rosario