Panaguiton v.
DOJ (2008): Private respondents borrowed Php 1, The Court ruled that the verification is merely a formal requirement
979,459 from the petitioner and issued 3 checks in March 1993 to
cover for it. However, the latter bounced so the petitioner demanded
them to pay. When they did not heed his demand, petitioner filed a
complaint with the City Prosecutor against respondents for violating
B.P. 22 in August 1995. Tongson, one of the respondents, claimed
that he was wrongly accused so the City Prosecutor only found
probable cause against Cawili, the other respondent. However,
petitioner presented evidence to show Tongson’s participation in the
crime that opened the case to a reinvestigation in July 1997. Later,
the Assistant City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint in 1999
against Tongson on the ground of prescription since Act 3326
provides that violations of special laws like B.P. 22 prescribe after 4
years. Considering that from 1993 to 1998, no information had yet
been filed against Tongson, the alleged violation of B.P. 22 already
prescribed. Additionally, the filing of the complaint before the City
Prosecutor in August 1995 did not interrupt the running of the
prescriptive period, as the law contemplates judicial, and not
administrative proceedings. Petitioner then went to the DOJ but the
latter had conflicting decisions. It first agreed with ACP, changed its
decision, and ruled again in favor of prescription. Consequently, he
appealed to the CA but his petition was denied after he failed to
attach the proper verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are
true and correct — the court may simply order the correction of
unverifed pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with
the rules in order that the ends of justice may be served, as in the
instant case. Thus, by attaching the pertinent verification to his motion
for reconsideration, petitioner sufficiently complied with the verification
requirement.
There is no question that Act No. 3326 is the law applicable to
offenses under special laws which do not provide their own
prescriptive periods. But, the position that only the fling of a case in
court can toll the running of the prescriptive period is unacceptable.
History provides that if a complaint is filed with the justice of
peace for preliminary investigation, then prescription is tolled.
The cases of Ingco, Sanrio, and Interport Resources also held
that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of
proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused.
Notably, the Court said that aggrieved parties, especially those who
do not sleep on their rights and actively pursue their causes, should
not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily further simply because of
circumstances beyond their control, like the accused's delaying tactics
or the delay and inefficiency of the investigating agencies.