Facts:
Ma. Theresa Pangilinan, the
respondent in this instant case allegedly issued 9 checks with the aggregate
amount of P9,658,692 in favor of Virginia Malolos. But, upon Malolos'
presentment of the said checks, they were dishonored. So, on Sept. 16, 1997,
Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22 against
Pangilinan.
On December 5, 1997, Pangilinan filed a civil case for accounting, recovery of
commercial documents, enforceability and effectivity of contract and specific
performance against Malolos before the RTC of Valenzuela City. Later,
Pangilinan also filed on December 10, 1997, a "Petition to Suspend
Proceedings on the Ground of Prejudicial Question".
On March 2, 1998, Assistant City Prosecutor Ruben Catubay recommended
Pangilinan's petition which was approved by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
Malolos, then, raised the matter before the DOJ.
On January 5, 1999, Sec. of Justice Serafin Cuevas reversed the resolution of
the City Prosecutor and ordered the filing of the informations for violation of
BP 22 in connection with Pangilinan's issuance of two checks, the charges
involving the other checks were dismissed. So, two counts of violation for BP
22, both dated Nov. 18, 1999, were filed against Pangilinan on Feb. 3, 2000
before the MeTC of Quezon City.
On June 17, 2000, Pangilinan filed an "Omnibus Motion to Quash the
Information and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest” before MeTC, Branch
31, Quezon City, alleging that the criminal liability has been extinguished by
reason of prescription. The motion was granted. Malolos filed a notice of
appeal and the RTC reversed the decision of the MeTC. According to the RTC, the
offense has not yet prescribed "considering the appropriate complaint that
started the proceedings having been filed with the Office of the Prosecutor on
16 September 1997". Dissatisfied, Pangilinan raised the matter to the
Supreme Court for review but it was referred to the CA "for appropriate
action".
On October 26, 2001, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and recognized
Feb. 3, 2000 as the date of the filing of the informations.
Issue: Whether or not the filing of the
affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22 against respondent
with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on 16 September 1997
interrupted the period of prescription of such offense.
Held. Yes. Under Section 1 of Act No.
3326 which is the law applicable to B.P. 22 cases, “[v]iolations penalized by
special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in
accordance with the following rules:… after four years for those punished by
imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years.” Under Section 2
of the same Act, “[t]he 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.
Since B.P. 22 is a special law that
imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not
more than one year or by a fine for its violation, it therefore prescribes in
four (4) years in accordance with the aforecited law. The running of the
prescriptive period, however, should be tolled upon the institution of
proceedings against the guilty person.
The affidavit-complaints for the
violations were filed against respondent on 16 September 1997. The cases
reached the MeTC of Quezon City only on 13 February 2000 because in the
meanwhile, respondent filed a civil case for accounting followed by a petition
before the City Prosecutor for suspension of proceedings on the ground of
“prejudicial question”. The matter was raised before the Secretary of
Justice after the City Prosecutor approved the petition to suspend
proceedings. It was only after the Secretary of Justice so ordered that
the informations for the violation of BP Blg. 22 were filed with the MeTC of
Quezon City.
Clearly, it was respondent’s own
motion for the suspension of the criminal proceedings, which motion she
predicated on her civil case for accounting, that caused the filing in court of
the 1997 initiated proceedings only in 2000.
No comments:
Post a Comment