Republic of the Philippines

8th Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
xxx
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiffs;
Crim. Case No. xxx
For: SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
(Art. 266, RPC)
-versusxxx;
Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration to the Order
dated August 16, 2016 which dismissed this case on the ground of
prescription. The prosecution argues that the case of People vs.
Del Rosario has already been overruled in the case of Llenes vs.
Dicdican, and the case of Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation
vs. Judge Lidua, Sr., cited the National Prosecutors Service Manual
which clearly states that for an offense penalized under the
Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription shall be interrupted
by the filing of the complaint with the Office of the City/Provincial
Prosecutor.
For their part, accused argues that while there are seemingly
conflicting decisions by the Supreme Court on this issue, the most
important factor to consider is that light offenses, as succinctly
provided for and declared by the Revised Penal Code, prescribe in
two months. Accused added that prescription is not interrupted
during the whole period that the complaint is pending with the
prosecution office and this is the only logical and feasible
interpretation that may be extracted from the provisions of the
Rules on Summary Procedure. They concluded that, as correctly
pointed by the prosecution, citing the National Prosecutors
Service Manual, offenses covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, the period of prescription in interrupted only by the
filing of the complaint or information in court.
The Court is inclined to grant the motion. The leading case
on the computation of the period for prescription of offenses in
cases covered by summary procedure is Reodica vs. Court of
Appeals and People of the Philippines. 1 The Supreme Court ruled
in the said case that the prescriptive period for offenses
punishable under the Revised Penal Code is interrupted with the
filing of the case before the Office of the Prosecutor. The Supreme
Court explained that:

G.R. No. 125066, 292 SCRA 87 (1998)

Page 1 of 3

To resolve the issue of whether these quasi offenses have already

prescribed, it is necessary to determine whether the filing of the complaint with
the fiscals office three days after the incident in question tolled the running of the
prescriptive period.
Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
ART. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. -- The period of
prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is
discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents,
and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and
shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without
the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped by
any reason not imputable to him. (emphasis supplied)
Notably, the aforequoted article, in declaring that the prescriptive period shall
be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, does not distinguish
whether the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or investigation only or
for an action on the merits.[33] Thus, in Francisco v. Court of
Appeals[34] and People v. Cuaresma,[35]this Court held that the filing of the
complaint even with the fiscals office suspends the running of the statute of
limitations.
We cannot apply Section 9 [36] of the Rule on Summary Procedure, which
provides that in cases covered thereby, such as offenses punishable by
imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, as in the instant case, the prosecution
commences by the filing of a complaint or information directly with the MeTC,
RTC or MCTC without need of a prior preliminary examination or investigation;
provided that in Metropolitan Manila and Chartered Cities, said cases may be
commenced only by information. However, this Section cannot be taken to mean
that the prescriptive period is interrupted only by the filing of a complaint or
information directly with said courts.
It must be stressed that prescription in criminal cases is a matter of
substantive law. Pursuant to Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution,
this Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, is not allowed to
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. [37] Hence, in case of
conflict between the Rule on Summary Procedure promulgated by this
Court and the Revised Penal Code, the latter prevails. (Emphasis added)

Earlier in 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Zaldivia vs.

Reyes2 that the filing of the case before the prosecutor did not
interrupt the prescriptive period since it was not a judicial
proceeding. However, the Supreme Court explained in Reodica
that the rule in Zaldivia applies only to violation of a municipal
ordinance. The Supreme Court explained in Reodica that:
Neither does Zaldivia control in this instance. It must be recalled that what
was involved therein was a violation of a municipal ordinance; thus, the
applicable law was not Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, but Act. No. 3326,
as amended, entitled An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations
Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When
Prescription Shall Begin to Run. Under Section 2 thereof, the period of
prescription is suspended only when judicial proceedings are instituted against
the guilty party. Accordingly, this Court held that the prescriptive period was not
interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, as such did not constitute a judicial proceeding; what could have
2

G.R. No. 102342, 211 SCRA 277, 284-285 (1992)

Page 2 of 3

tolled the prescriptive period there was only the filing of the information in the
proper court.
In the instant case, as the offenses involved are covered by the Revised
Penal
Code,
Article
91
thereof
and
the
rulings
in Francisco and Cuaresma apply. Thus,
the
prescriptive
period
for
the quasi offenses in question was interrupted by the filing of the complaint with
the fiscals office three days after the vehicular mishap and remained tolled
pending the termination of this case. We cannot, therefore, uphold petitioners
defense of prescription of the offenses charged in the information in this case.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED.

The Order dated xxx is set aside. Schedule the arraignment of this
case.
SO ORDERED.
IN CHAMBERS, xxx.

xxx
Presiding Judge

Page 3 of 3