The Supreme Court ruled that filing a complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts the prescriptive period for offenses under special laws, like violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law. This means that the four-year period within which to file charges is suspended once a complaint is lodged with the prosecutor for preliminary investigation, protecting the rights of aggrieved parties who actively pursue their cases. This decision clarifies that the same rule applies to offenses under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and special laws, ensuring consistent application of prescription rules.

When Does the Clock Stop? Prescription in BP 22 Cases

This case revolves around Ma. Theresa Pangilinan, who was accused of violating BP 22 for issuing several bouncing checks. Virginia C. Malolos, the private complainant, filed an affidavit-complaint with the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office. Pangilinan argued that the charges against her should be dismissed because the prescriptive period of four years had already lapsed before the information was filed in court. The central legal question is whether the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts the prescriptive period, or if the period only stops when the information is filed in court.

The Court of Appeals (CA) sided with Pangilinan, reversing the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) decision and ordering the dismissal of the criminal cases. The CA relied on the case of Zaldivia v. Reyes, stating that the prescriptive period is interrupted only upon the filing of the complaint or information with the proper court. However, the Supreme Court (SC) disagreed with the CA’s interpretation and reversed its decision.

The SC emphasized that Act No. 3326, as amended, governs the prescriptive period for violations of special laws like BP 22. Section 2 of Act No. 3326 states:

The 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.

The crucial point of contention was the interpretation of “proceedings are instituted.” The Court clarified that the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor’s office for preliminary investigation constitutes the institution of proceedings that interrupts the prescriptive period.

Building on this principle, the SC cited the landmark case of People v. Olarte, which held that:

the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation, should, and thus, interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if the court where the complaint or information is filed cannot try the case on the merits.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the respondent’s argument that a different rule should apply to special laws compared to offenses under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The SC explicitly stated that there is no longer a distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by special laws concerning the interruption of the prescriptive period. The earlier ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr., which the CA relied upon, was deemed not controlling in cases involving special laws. Numerous subsequent cases, including Llenes v. Dicdican and Ingco, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, have consistently held that the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation interrupts the period of prescription, even in cases involving special laws.

In essence, the SC harmonized the treatment of prescription across different types of offenses. This approach contrasts with the CA’s narrow interpretation, which would have effectively shortened the prescriptive period for special laws and potentially prejudiced aggrieved parties who diligently pursue their cases. This is further illustrated in Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, a case directly analogous to the present one, where the Court affirmed that commencing prosecution proceedings before the City Prosecutor’s Office interrupts the prescriptive period for BP 22 offenses.

Moreover, the SC emphasized that delays caused by the accused’s actions, such as filing motions for suspension of proceedings, should not prejudice the injured party. In this case, Pangilinan’s motion for suspension of criminal proceedings, based on a pending civil case for accounting, contributed to the delay in filing the information in court. The court found that allowing such delays to shorten the prescriptive period would be unjust to the injured party. Therefore, the SC ruled that the filing of the affidavit-complaint with the City Prosecutor’s Office on September 16, 1997, effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the BP 22 violations.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Pangilinan reaffirms the principle that the prescriptive period for offenses under special laws, such as BP 22, is interrupted upon the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor’s office for preliminary investigation. This ruling ensures consistency in the application of prescription rules and protects the rights of aggrieved parties who actively pursue their cases. It also prevents accused parties from benefiting from delays they themselves cause.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts the prescriptive period for violations of BP 22, a special law. The respondent argued that the period only stops when the information is filed in court.
What is BP 22?	BP 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the issuance of checks without sufficient funds. It aims to promote stability and integrity in financial transactions.
What is the prescriptive period for BP 22 violations?	The prescriptive period for BP 22 violations is four years, as provided under Act No. 3326. This period starts from the date of the offense or its discovery.
When does the prescriptive period begin to run for BP 22?	The prescriptive period begins to run from the date the check is dishonored and the issuer is notified, including the allowance of a five-day grace period to cover the amount.
Does filing a complaint with the prosecutor interrupt prescription?	Yes, the Supreme Court clarified that filing a complaint with the prosecutor’s office for preliminary investigation interrupts the prescriptive period for BP 22 violations. This protects the rights of the complainant.
What was the CA’s ruling and why was it reversed?	The CA ruled that prescription was only interrupted upon filing in court, relying on Zaldivia v. Reyes. The Supreme Court reversed this, stating Zaldivia does not apply to special laws.
What is the significance of People v. Olarte in this case?	People v. Olarte established that filing a complaint, even for preliminary investigation, interrupts prescription. This principle was reaffirmed and applied to BP 22 violations.
What if the delay in filing the case in court is due to the accused?	The Supreme Court held that delays caused by the accused’s actions, such as motions for suspension, should not prejudice the complainant. The complainant should not be penalized.
Are special laws treated differently from the Revised Penal Code?	The Supreme Court clarified that there is no longer a distinction between special laws and the Revised Penal Code regarding the interruption of prescription, ensuring consistent application.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Pangilinan provides a clear and consistent rule regarding the interruption of the prescriptive period for special laws. This ruling helps to ensure that those who violate these laws are held accountable and that the rights of aggrieved parties are protected. By clarifying that the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts the prescriptive period, the Court has removed any ambiguity and provided a clear path for pursuing justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MA. THERESA PANGILINAN, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012