Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 102342 July 3, 1992
LUZ M. ZALDIVIA, petitioner,
vs.
ON. ANDRES !. RE"ES, JR., #$ %#& '()('#*y (& A'*#$+ P,-&#.#$+ Ju.+- o/ *%-
R-+#o$(l T,#(l Cou,*, 0ou,*% Ju.#'#(l R-+#o$, !,($'% 12, S($ M(*-o, R#3(l, ($.
PEOPLE O0 TE PILIPPINES, respondents.

CRUZ, J.:
The Court is asked to determine the applicable la specif!in" the prescriptive period
for violations of municipal ordinances.
The petitioner is char"ed ith #uarr!in" for commercial purposes ithout a ma!or$s
permit in violation of %rdinance No. &, 'eries of ()**, of the Municipalit! of
Rodri"ue+, in the Province of Ri+al.
The offense as alle"edl! committed on Ma! ((, ()),.
1
The referral-complaint of the
police as received b! the %ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ri+al on Ma! .,,
()),.
2
The correspondin" information as filed ith the Municipal Trial Court of
Rodri"ue+ on %ctober &, ()),.
3
The petitioner moved to #uash the information on the "round that the crime had
prescribed, but the motion as denied. %n appeal to the Re"ional Trial Court of
Ri+al, the denial as sustained b! the respondent /ud"e.
4
0n the present petition for revie on certiorari, the petitioner first ar"ues that the
char"e a"ainst her is "overned b! the folloin" provisions of the Rule on 'ummar!
Procedure1
'ec. (. Scope 2 This rule shall "overn the procedure in the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the folloin" cases1
333 333 333
B. Criminal Cases1
(. 4iolations of traffic las, rules and re"ulations5
&. 4iolations of rental la5
.. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
6. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for
the offenses charged does not exceed six months imprisonment,
or a fine of one thousand pesos (P1,00000!, or both, irrespecti"e
of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the ci"il
liability arising therefrom. . . . 7Emphasis supplied.8
333 333 333
'ec. ). #ow commenced. 2 The prosecution of criminal cases
fallin" ithin the scope of this Rule shall be either b! complaint or
by information filed directl! in court ithout need of a prior
preliminar! e3amination or preliminar! investi"ation1 Provided,
hoever, That in Metropolitan Manila and chartered cities, such
cases shall be commenced onl! b! information5 Provided, further,
That hen the offense cannot be prosecuted de oficio, the
correspondin" complaint shall be si"ned and sorn to before the
fiscal b! the offended part!.
'he then invokes Act. No. ..&9, as amended, entitled :An Act to Establish Periods of
Prescription for 4iolations Penali+ed b! 'pecial Acts and Municipal %rdinances and
to Provide ;hen Prescription 'hall Be"in to Run,: readin" as follos1
'ec. (. 4iolations penali+ed b! special acts shall, unless provided
in such acts, prescribe in accordance ith the folloin"
rules1 . . . Violations penali$ed by municipal ordinances shall
prescribe after two months.
'ec. &. Prescription shall be"in to run from the da! of the
commission of the violation of the la, and if the same be not
knon at the time, from the discover! thereof and the institution
of %udicial proceedings for its in"estigation and punishment.
&he prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if
1
the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting
%eopardy.
'ec. .. <or the purposes of this Act, special acts shall be acts
definin" and penali+in" violations of la not included in the Penal
Code. 7Emphasis supplied8
=er conclusion is that as the information as filed a! be!ond the
to-month statutor! period from the date of the alle"ed commission of the offense,
the char"e a"ainst her should have been dismissed on the "round of prescription.
<or its part, the prosecution contends that the prescriptive period as suspended
upon the filin" of the complaint a"ainst her ith the %ffice of the Provincial
Prosecutor. A"reein" ith the respondent /ud"e, the 'olicitor >eneral also invokes
'ection (, Rule ((, of the ()*? Rules on Criminal Procedure, providin" as follos1
'ec. (. =o 0nstituted 2 'or offenses not sub%ect to the rule on
summary procedure in special cases, the institution of criminal
action shall be as follos1
a8 <or offenses fallin" under the /urisdiction of
the Re"ional Trial Court, b! filin" the complaint
ith the appropriate officer for the purpose of
conductin" the re#uisite preliminar! investi"ation
therein5
b8 <or offenses fallin" under the /urisdiction of
the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts, b! filin" the complaint directl! ith
the said courts, or a complaint ith the fiscal$s
office. =oever, in Metropolitan Manila and other
chartered cities, the complaint ma! be filed onl!
ith the office of the fiscal.
(n all cases such institution interrupts the period of prescription of
the offense charged. 7Emphasis supplied.8
Emphasis is laid on the last para"raph. The respondent maintains that the filin" of
the complaint ith the %ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor comes under the phrase
:such institution: and that the phrase :in all cases: applies to all cases, ithout
distinction, includin" those fallin" under the Rule on 'ummar! Procedure.
The said para"raph, accordin" to the respondent, as an adoption of the folloin"
dictum in 'rancisco " )ourt of Appeals1
4
0n vie of this diversit! of precedents, and in order to provide
"uidance for Bench and Bar, this Court has re-e3amined the
#uestion and, after mature consideration, has arrived at the
conclusion that the true doctrine is, and should be, the one
established b! the decisions holdin" that the filin" of the complaint
in the Municipal Court, even if it be merel! for purposes of
preliminar! e3amination or investi"ation, should, and does,
interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibilit!,
even if the court here the complaint or information is filed can not
tr! the case on its merits. 'everal reasons buttress this conclusion1
first, the te3t of Article )( of the Revised Penal Code, in declarin"
that the period of prescription :shall be interrupted b! the filin" of
the complaint or information: ithout distin"uishin" hether the
complaint is filed in the court for preliminar! e3amination or
investi"ation merel!, or for action on the merits. 'econd, even if
the court here the complaint or information is filed ma! onl!
proceed to investi"ate the case, its actuations alread! represent
the initial step of the proceedin"s a"ainst the offender. Third, it is
un/ust to deprive the in/ured part! of the ri"ht to obtain vindication
on account of dela!s that are not under his control. All that the
victim of the offense ma! do on his part to initiate the prosecution
is to file the re#uisite complaint.
0t is important to note that this decision as promul"ated on Ma! .,, ()*., to
months before the promul"ation of the Rule on 'ummar! Procedure on Au"ust (,
()*.. %n the other hand, 'ection ( of Rule ((, is ne, havin" been incorporated
therein ith the revision of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on @anuar! (, ()*?,
e3cept for the last para"raph, hich as added on %ctober (, ()**.
That section meanin"full! be"ins ith the phrase, :for offenses not sub/ect to the rule
on summar! procedure in special cases,: hich plainl! si"nifies that the section does
not appl! to offenses hich are sub/ect to summar! procedure. The phrase :in all
cases: appearin" in the last para"raph obviousl! refers to the cases covered b! the
'ection, that is, those offenses not "overned b! the Rule on 'ummar! Procedure.
This interpretation conforms to the canon that ords in a statute should be read in
relation to and not isolation from the rest of the measure, to discover the true
le"islative intent.
As it is clearl! provided in the Rule on 'ummar! Procedure that amon" the offenses
it covers are violations of municipal or cit! ordinances, it should follo that the char"e
a"ainst the petitioner, hich is for violation of a municipal ordinance of Rodri"ue+, is
"overned b! that rule and not 'ection ( of Rule ((,.
;here para"raph 7b8 of the section does speak of :offenses fallin" under the
/urisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,: the
obvious reference is to 'ection .&7&8 of B.P. No. (&), vestin" in such courts1
2
7&8 E3clusive ori"inal /urisdiction over all offenses punishable ith
imprisonment of not e3ceedin" four !ears and to months, or a
fine of not more than four thousand pesos, or both such fine and
imprisonment, re"ardless of other imposable accessor! or other
penalties, includin" the civil liabilit! arisin" from such offenses or
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount
thereof5 Provided, hoever, That in offenses involvin" dama"e to
propert! throu"h criminal ne"li"ence the! shall have e3clusive
ori"inal /urisdiction here the imposable fine does not e3ceed
tent! thousand pesos.
These offenses are not covered b! the Rule on 'ummar! Procedure.
Ander 'ection ) of the Rule on 'ummar! Procedure, :the complaint or information
shall be filed directl! in court ithout need of a prior preliminar! e3amination or
preliminar! investi"ation.:
2
Both parties a"ree that this provision does not prevent
the prosecutor from conductin" a preliminar! investi"ation if he ants to. =oever,
the case shall be deemed commenced onl! hen it is filed in court, hether or not
the prosecution decides to conduct a preliminar! investi"ation. This means that the
runnin" of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actuall! filed
in court and not on an! date before that.
This interpretation is in consonance ith the afore-#uoted Act No. ..&9 hich sa!s
that the period of prescription shall be suspended :hen proceedin"s are instituted
a"ainst the "uilt! part!.: The proceedin"s referred to in 'ection & thereof are :/udicial
proceedin"s,: contrar! to the submission of the 'olicitor >eneral that the! include
administrative proceedin"s. =is contention is that e must not distin"uish as the la
does not distin"uish. As a matter of fact, it does.
At an! rate, the Court feels that if there be a conflict beteen the Rule on 'ummar!
Procedure and 'ection ( of Rule ((, of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the former
should prevail as the special la. And if there be a conflict beteen Act. No. ..&9
and Rule ((, of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the latter must a"ain !ield because
this Court, in the e3ercise of its rule-makin" poer, is not alloed to :diminish,
increase or modif! substantive ri"hts: under Article 4000, 'ection ?7?8 of the
Constitution. Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive ri"ht.
1
>oin" back to the <rancisco case, e find it not irrelevant to observe that the
decision ould have been conformable to 'ection (, Rule ((,, as the offense
involved as "rave oral defamation punishable under the Revised Penal Code
ith arresto mayor in its ma3imum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period. B! contrast, the prosecution in the instant case is for violation of a municipal
ordinance, for hich the penalt! cannot e3ceed si3 months, 5 and is thus covered b!
the Rule on 'ummar! Procedure.
The Court reali+es that under the above interpretation, a crime ma! prescribe even if
the complaint is filed seasonabl! ith the prosecutor$s office if, intentionall! or not, he
dela!s the institution of the necessar! /udicial proceedin"s until it is too late.
=oever, that possibilit! should not /ustif! a misreadin" of the applicable rules
be!ond their obvious intent as reasonabl! deduced from their plain lan"ua"e. The
remed! is not a distortion of the meanin" of the rules but a reordin" thereof to
prevent the problem here sou"ht to be corrected.
%ur conclusion is that the prescriptive period for the crime imputed to the petitioner
commenced from its alle"ed commission on Ma! ((, ()),, and ended to months
thereafter, on @ul! ((, ()),, in accordance ith 'ection ( of Act No. ..&9. 0t as not
interrupted b! the filin" of the complaint ith the %ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor
on Ma! .,, ()),, as this as not a /udicial proceedin". The /udicial proceedin" that
could have interrupted the period as the filin" of the information ith the Municipal
Trial Court of Rodri"ue+, but this as done onl! on %ctober &, ()),, after the crime
had alread! prescribed.
;=ERE<%RE, the petition is >RANTEB, and the challen"ed %rder dated %ctober &,
())( is 'ET A'0BE. Criminal Case No. ),-,*) in the Municipal Trial Court of
Rodri"ue+, Ri+al, is hereb! B0'M0''EB on the "round of prescription. 0t is so
ordered.
3