1
PP vs. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan
GR. No. 152662, June 13, 2012
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.
2
RULING:
Yes. Sec. 1, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides
xx
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running period of prescription of the
offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws.
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 respondents 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.
