Zaldivia vs.

Reyes

Facts: Zaldivia was charged with a violation of a Municipal Ordinance (quarrying for
commercial purposes without a mayor's permit). The offense was committed on 11 May
1990 and the complaint of the police was received by the Prov’l Prosecutor’s Office on
May 30, 1990, while the information was filed with the MTC on October 2, 1990.

Zaldivia moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had
prescribed, but the motion was denied.

Zaldivia averred that as the information was filed beyond the two-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 following
Sec. 1 of Act 3326 which provides that “Violations penalized by municipal
ordinances shall prescribe after two months.”

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the filing of a complaint before
the Prov’l Prosecutor’s Office 19 days after the offense was committed tolls the running
of the prescription period.

Issue: w/n the filing of the complaint before the Prosecutor’s Office tolls the running of
the prescription period – No

Ruling: The filing of complaint before the Prosecutor’s Office did not interrupt the
running of the prescriptive period as it was not a judicial proceeding. The judicial
proceeding that could have interrupted the period was the filing of the information with
the MTC, but this was done only on October 2, 1990, after the crime had already
prescribed.

Act No. 3326, as amended, entitled “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” provides that “Prescription shall begin to run from the
day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the
time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment. The 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.”

The Rule on Summary Procedure provides that “Violations of municipal or city

ordinances; and All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the
offense charged does not exceed six months imprisonment, or a fine of one thousand
pesos (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other impossible penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom” shall be governed by such rule.
Such rule further provides for the commencement of criminal cases falling within
the scope of this Rule shall be either by complaint or by information filed directly
in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation.