Zaldivia v.

Reyes
G.R. No. 102342
July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 277

FACTS

An information was filed against Zaldivia for quarrying for commercial purposes
without a mayor’s permit in violation of a municipal ordinance. The fiscal did not file the
complaint before the court immediately but instead filed it three (3) months later. Zaldivia filed
a motion to quash on ground that the action to file the complaint has prescribed as it was filed
beyond the two-month statutory period. The fiscal contends that the filing of the complaint
before his office already interrupts the prescription period.

ISSUE

Is the filing of an information/complaint before the fiscal’s office constituting a violation

of a special law/ordinance interrupts prescription? NO.

RATIO

On the application of Section 1, Rule 110

The court held that it is clearly provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure that among
the offenses it covers are violations of municipal or city ordinances, it should follow that the
charge against Zaldivia for violation of a municipal ordinance is governed by that rule and not
Section 1 of Rule 110.

On resolving conflicts between the ROC and RSP

The Court held that if there is conflict between the Rule on Summary Procedure and
Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the former should prevail as the
special law. And if there be a conflict between Act No. 3326 (the ordinance) and Rule 110 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure, the latter must again yield because the Court, in the exercise of its
rule-making power, is not allowed to “diminish, increase or modify substantive rights” under
Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution. Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive
right.

Application
Under Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, 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. Section 9 provides, “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. The Court concluded that the prescriptive period for the crime imputed to
Zaldivia commenced from its alleged commission on May 11, 1990, and ended two months
thereafter, on July 11, 1990, in accordance with Section 1 of Act No. 3326. It was not interrupted
by the filing of the complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor on May 30, 1990, as
this was not a judicial proceeding. The judicial proceeding that could have interrupted the
period was the filing of the information with MTC Rodriguez, but this was done only on
October 2, 1990, after the crime had already prescribed.