Maricel Aying created the doc: "Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr., 211 SCRA 277 (1992)" Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr.

, 211 SCRA 277 (1992) Facts: Defendant was charged with quarrying without a license in violation of a municipal ordinance. The offense prescribes in 2 months. The complaint was filed with the prosecutor within 2 months, but the information was filed in court beyond the 2 months. Prosecution argues that filing of the complaint with the prosecutor interrupted the period of prescription. Defendant argues that it is the only upon filing of the information in court that prescription is interrupted based on the rules on Summary Procedure, and Act No. 3326. Held: Since the Sec. 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure excluded offenses subject to summary procedure, the prescription of such offenses are not interrupted by filing a complaint with the prosecutor. Furthermore, Act 3326 provides that violations of ordinances prescribe in 2 months, and provides that filing of complaint before the prosecutor does not suspend the prescriptive period. Therefore, prescription for violations of municipal ordinances is interrupted only when the information is actually filed in court. de Leon: Note that the new rules no longer exclude offenses governed by Summary Procedure. Hence prescription of offenses governed by summary procedure is now interrupted by filing a complaint with the prosecutor. To this extent, Zaldivia v. Reyes has been modified. However, Act 3326 is still operative. Since the new rules still provide for the exception otherwise provided in special laws, prescription for violation of municipal ordinances are NOT interrupted by filing a complaint with the prosecutor.

View Doc