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

Francisco vs. Court of Appeals

 Summary of Facts:

Simple slander instead of Grave Oral Defamation. Defamatory remarks were committed on December 26, 1965 and the information charging the accused of the greater offense of grave oral defamation was filed with the court more than 4 months later (May 3, 1966)

Issue: 

Whether or not the crime of simple slander found by the CA to be the offense committed by the petitioners has prescribed.

Resolution: 

Yes. An accused cannot be convicted for the lesser offense necessarily included in the crime charged if at the time of the filing of the information, the lesser offense has already prescribed. To hold otherwise, according to the Court, would be to sanction a circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of accusing the defendant of the graver offense. 

Doctrine in People vs. Olarte that filing of complaint in the municipal court, even if merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation, interrupts the period of prescription of felony even if court where complaint or information is filed cannot try the case on its merits, the true and correct doctrine.