People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No.

152662, March 10, 2000

Crim Pro - Rule 110

Facts:
Ma. Theresa Pangilinan, the respondent in this instant case allegedly issued 9 checks with
the aggregate amount of P9,658,692 in favor of Virginia Malolos. But, upon Malolos' presentment of
the said checks, they were dishonored. So, on Sept. 16, 1997, Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint for
estafa and violation of BP 22 against Pangilinan.

            On December 5, 1997, Pangilinan filed a civil case for accounting, recovery of commercial
documents, enforceability and effectivity of contract and specific performance against Malolos before
the RTC of Valenzuela City. Later, Pangilinan also filed on December 10, 1997, a "Petition to
Suspend Proceedings on the Ground of Prejudicial Question".

            On March 2, 1998, Assistant City Prosecutor Ruben Catubay recommended Pangilinan's
petition which was approved by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Malolos, then, raised the matter
before the DOJ.

            On January 5, 1999, Sec. of Justice Serafin Cuevas reversed the resolution of the City
Prosecutor and ordered the filing of the informations for violation of BP 22 in connection with
Pangilinan's issuance of two checks, the charges involving the other checks were dismissed. So, two
counts of violation for BP 22, both dated Nov. 18, 1999, were filed against Pangilinan on Feb. 3, 2000
before the MeTC of Quezon City.

            On June 17, 2000, Pangilinan filed an "Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information and to Defer
the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest” before MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon City, alleging that the criminal
liability has been extinguished by reason of prescription. The motion was granted. Malolos filed a
notice of appeal and the RTC reversed the decision of the MeTC. According to the RTC, the offense
has not yet prescribed "considering the appropriate complaint that started the proceedings having
been filed with the Office of the Prosecutor on 16 September 1997". Dissatisfied, Pangilinan raised
the matter to the Supreme Court for review but it was referred to the CA "for appropriate action".

            On October 26, 2001, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and recognized Feb. 3, 2000
as the date of the filing of the informations.

Issue: Whether or not the filing of the affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22 against
respondent with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on 16 September 1997 interrupted
the period of prescription of such offense.

Held. Yes. Under Section 1 of Act No. 3326 which is the law applicable to B.P. 22 cases, “[v]iolations
penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with
the following rules:… after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month,
but less than two years.” Under Section 2 of the same Act, “[t]he prescription shall be interrupted
when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
 Since B.P. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty
(30) days but not more than one year or by a fine for its violation, it therefore prescribes in four (4)
years in accordance with the aforecited law. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should
be tolled upon the institution of proceedings against the guilty person.

The affidavit-complaints for the violations were filed against respondent on 16 September
1997.  The cases reached the MeTC of Quezon City only on 13 February 2000 because in the
meanwhile, respondent filed a civil case for accounting followed by a petition before the City
Prosecutor for suspension of proceedings on the ground of “prejudicial question”.  The matter was
raised before the Secretary of Justice after the City Prosecutor approved the petition to suspend
proceedings.  It was only after the Secretary of Justice so ordered that the informations for the
violation of BP Blg. 22 were filed with the MeTC of Quezon City.

Clearly, it was respondent’s own motion for the suspension of the criminal proceedings, which
motion she predicated on her civil case for accounting, that caused the filing in court of the 1997
initiated proceedings only in 2000.