Case Digest: Panaguiton vs. DOJ, et al., G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008.

Criminal Law | Prescription

  • In 1992, Rodrigo Cawili borrowed ₱1.9M from petitioner Luis Panaguiton.

  • On January 8, 1993, Cawili and Ramon Tongson issued three checks as payment.

  • On March 18, 1993, the checks were dishonored.

  • In 1995, Panaguiton made demands, but payment was not made.

  • On August 24, 1995, Panaguiton filed a complaint for violation of B.P. 22 against Cawili and Tongson before the QC Prosecutor.

  • The case against Tongson was dismissed, then reinstated on appeal, then again dismissed by the prosecutor for having prescribed.

  • Whether the filing of a complaint for violation of B.P. 22 before the prosecutor’s office interrupt the running of the 4-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326.  (YES)

  • The filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts the prescriptive period.

    • DOJ wrongly relied on Zaldivia v. Reyes (ordinance violation) which held that prescription is tolled only upon filing of the information in court.

    • Correct precedent is Ingco v. Sandiganbayan (special law, R.A. 3019) which ruled that filing of a complaint with the prosecutor for preliminary investigation suspends prescription.

    • Applying Zaldivia would be unjust, as delays here were beyond petitioner’s control.

  • B.P. 22 is a special law; thus, Act No. 3326 applies.

    • Violation of B.P. 22 → prescribes in 4 years (since penalty is 30 days–1 year or fine).

    • Sec. 2: Prescription interrupted when proceedings are instituted, and resumes if dismissed without jeopardy.

    • However, “proceedings” in Sec. 2 of Act No. 3326 must be understood in light of current practice: preliminary investigation is now conducted by prosecutors (executive branch), not justices of the peace (judiciary).

    • Filing with the prosecutor is the first step in prosecution, hence sufficient to toll prescription.

    • To rule otherwise would unjustly penalize complainants for delays beyond their control.

  • Thus, since Panaguiton filed his complaint in 1995, well within 4 years from the dishonor of the checks (1993), the offense had not prescribed.

  • Petition GRANTED.

  • DOJ ordered to refile informations against Tongson for B.P. 22 violation.

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

Special Rules and Proceedings: Rule 75