Scribd
Upload
86 views1 page

Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation V. Hon. Judge Lidua Sr. G.R. No. 169588. October 7, 2013

1) Petitioner's vehicle clamps were dismantled and vehicles with unpaid fines were involved. The prosecutor found probable cause for violating a city ordinance but not for robbery. 2) Respondents argued the cases should be quashed because more than 5 months had passed between the alleged offenses in May 2003 and the filing of informations in October 2003, exceeding the prescriptive period. 3) The court applied the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, ruling that for ordinance violations, only the filing of an information tolls prescription. As the informations were filed over 5 months after the alleged offenses, prescription was not tolled and the cases were correctly dismissed.

Uploaded by

Czarianne Golla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
86 views1 page

Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation V. Hon. Judge Lidua Sr. G.R. No. 169588. October 7, 2013

1) Petitioner's vehicle clamps were dismantled and vehicles with unpaid fines were involved. The prosecutor found probable cause for violating a city ordinance but not for robbery. 2) Respondents argued the cases should be quashed because more than 5 months had passed between the alleged offenses in May 2003 and the filing of informations in October 2003, exceeding the prescriptive period. 3) The court applied the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, ruling that for ordinance violations, only the filing of an information tolls prescription. As the informations were filed over 5 months after the alleged offenses, prescription was not tolled and the cases were correctly dismissed.

Uploaded by

Czarianne Golla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. HON. JUDGE LIDUA SR.

G.R. No. 169588. October 7, 2013.

Petitioner raised incidents wherein their vehicle clamps were dismantled, took and carried away from
the vehicles then illegally parked and [left] unattended. Likewise, the fines for illegal parking and the
declamping fee of P500.00 were also not paid by the vehicle owners.

Acting City Prosecutor Mario Anacleto Banez found probable cause to file a case of Usurpation of
Authority against the petitioner and stated that he found no probable cause regarding the case of
Robbery against respondents. However, admits that the acts of respondents in removing the wheel
clamps on the wheels of the cars involved in these cases and their failure to pay the prescribed fees
were in violation of Sec. 21 of Baguio City Ordinance No. 003-2000 which prescribes fines and penalties
for violations of the provisions of such ordinance thus for violation of the said ordinance in both cases
the prosecutor filed the corresponding informations against them in Court.

In their Motion to Quash, respondents argued that Article 89 of the Revised Penal [sic] provides that
criminal liability is totally extinguished by prescription of the crime and as alleged in the Information, the
offense charged in this case was committed on May 7, 2003 while the informations were filed on
October 2, 2003, almost five months after the alleged commission of the offense charged. Hence,
criminal liability of the accused in this case, if any, was already extinguished by prescription when the
Information was filed.

The respondent judge granted respondents' Motion to Quash, stating that the offenses are covered by
the Rules on Summary Procedure being alleged violations of City Ordinances and that in case of conflict,
the Rule on Summary Procedure as the special law prevails over the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court contending that
the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
dismissing Criminal Case the cases on the ground of prescription.

ISSUE:
W/N the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23, 2003 tolled the
prescription period of the commission of the offense charged against respondents.

RULING:
The Petition is denied. The procedural rules that govern this case are the 1991 Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure.

As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the
prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance. The respondent judge was
correct when he applied the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes.

For violation of a special law or ordinance, the period of prescription shall commence to run from the
day of the commission of the violation, and if the same is not known at the time, from the discovery and
the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be
interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in court and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy.

You might also like