Zaldivia vs. Reyes, Jr.

 Summary of Facts:

Prescriptive period for violations of municipal ordinances.  The petitioner is charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor’s permit in violation of Ordinance No. 2. The offense was allegedly committed on May 11, 1990.

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 Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990. (5 months after)

Issue:

Has the action prescribed?

Resolution:

Crime prescribed. The prescriptive period for the crime imputed to the petitioner 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 the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez, but this was done only on October 2, 1990, after the crime had already prescribed.

In case of conflict, the Rule on Summary Procedure as the special law prevails over Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and also Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure must yield to Act No. 3326