RULE 110 Jadewell v Lidua
 With regard to Summary Proceedings
INSTITUTION OF A CRIMINAL ACTION
People v Bautista
 Filing with the OCP tolled the prescription
 RPC Art. 91. Computation of prescription of
offenses. - The period of prescription shall
o COMMENCE to run from the day on
which the crime is discovered by the
offended party, the authorities, or their
agents,
o and shall be INTERRUPTED by the
filing of the complaint or information,
and
o shall COMMENCE TO RUN AGAIN
when
1. such proceedings terminate without
the accused being convicted or
acquitted, or
2. are unjustifiably stopped for any
reason not imputable to him (the
accused).
Panaguiton v DOJ
 With regard to Special Laws any initiation by an
investigating agency tolls the prescriptive period.
 Prescription of offenses under Special Laws:
Act 3326, Sec.1 - Violations penalized by special
acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such
acts, prescribe in accordance with the following
rules:
(a) after a year for offenses punished only by a
fine or by imprisonment for not more than one
month, or both;
(b) after four years for those punished by
imprisonment for more than one month, but less
than two years;
(c) after eight years for those punished by
imprisonment for two years or more, but less than
six years; and
(d) after twelve years for any other offense
punished by imprisonment for six years or more,
except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe
after twenty years. Violations penalized by
municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two
months.
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the
day of the commission of the violation of the law,
and if the same be not known at the time, from
the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
The 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.
 “Proceedings” means judicial or executive
(violations of municipal or city ordinances) the
following rules apply:
1. The prescriptive period is 2 months for City
ordinances
2. Prescription runs from discovery
3. Prescriptive period is INTERUPPTED when
filed in Court not PI.
WHO MUST PROSECUTE
Pinote v Ayco
 Criminal actions shall be under the control
and direction of the Public Prosecutor.
 Violation of this rule cannot be rectified by
subsequent action (in the case the
respondent Judge offered to let the
prosecution cross examine the witnesses
separately = does NOT rectify the violation).
People v Piccio
 Only the OSG may appeal the criminal aspect
of a case so as to represent the People.
 An appeal for the criminal aspect of a case not
filed by the People represented by the OSG is
perforce dismissable.
People v Dela Cerna
 A victim in a private crime may pardon the
accused before filing the complaint.
 Once a complaint for a private crime is filed, the
control over the cases moves to the public
prosecutor and any change of heart by the
victim (i.e. pardoning the accused) will not effect
the State’s right to vindicate itself for the wrong
committed.
People v Go
 An indispensable party is a party-in-interest
without whom no final determination can be had
of an action, and who shall be joined either as
plaintiffs or defendants. The presence of
indispensable parties is necessary to vest the
court with jurisdiction, which is "the authority to
hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a
case."
 While the failure to implead an indispensable
party is not per sea ground for the dismissal of an
action, it remains essential – as it is jurisdictional
– that any indispensable party be impleaded in
the proceedings before the court renders
judgment.
 Without the presence of indispensible parties the
Court’s judgment will not attain real finality
COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION
People v Bayabos
 Plain reference to a technical term (in this case
“hazing”) is insufficient and incomplete as it is but
 a mere characterization of the alleged acts and
thereofore a mere conclusion of law.
 Belatedly arguing the presence of an element not
alleged in the information does not cure the
defect.

Lasoy et al v. Zeñarosa
 It is too late in the day for the prosecution to ask
for an ammendment of the information and seek
to try again the accused for the same offense
(the accused had already pleaded guilty and
were petitioning for bail).

People v Puig
 It is evident that the Information need not use the
exact language of the statute in alleging the acts
or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense. The test is whether it enables a person
of common understanding to know the charge
against him, and the court to render judgment
properly.

People v Ceredon
 The date or time of the commission of the rape
need not be alleged with precision. It is enough
for the information or complaint to state that the
crime has been committed at a time as near as
possible to the date of its actual commission.
Failure to allege the exact date when the crime
happened does not render the information
defective, much less void.
 An information is valid as long as it distinctly
states the elements of the offense and the
constitutive acts or omissions. The exact date of
the commission of a crime is not an essential
element of it.
 Further, what is required by the Rules is that "the
acts or omissions complained of as constituting
the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language

People v Soriano
 If the appellant does not seasonably object to the
multiple charges in the information the Court may
convict him of as many as are charged and
proved.

People v Ricarze
 Substitution of the private complainant did not
prejudice the rights of the accused.
 Test to determined if the defendant is prejudiced:
1. W/n the