PEOPLE V. MA.

THERESA PANGILINAN
G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012
Perez, J:

FACTS:

On 16 September 1997, Virginia C. Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of
Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22 against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan (respondent) with the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The complaint alleges that respondent issued nine (9) checks
with an aggregate amount of Nine Million Six Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-
Two Pesos (P9,658,592.00) in favor of private complainant which were dishonored upon
presentment for payment.
Consequently the case was modified, and only on February 3, 2000 that two counts for violation
of BP Blg. 22 were filed against respondent Ma.Theresa Pangilinan in the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Quezon City. On 17 June 2000, respondent filed an “Omnibus Motion to Quash the
Information and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest” before MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon
City. She alleged that her criminal liability has been extinguished by reason of prescription.

In defense of her claim, Pangilinan said that the prevailing law that governs the prescription of
special penal law, B.P. 22, is Section 2 of Act No. 3326 (An Act To Establish Periods Of
Prescription For Violations Penalized By Special Acts) where the right to file an action to a
“proper court” and not to merely to prosecution office for B.P. 22, prescribes four (4) years from
the commission of the crime. The imputed violation occurred sometime in 1995, and only on
February 3, 2000 that a case was formally filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court, therefore the
action already prescribes. RTC granted the motion.

On the other hand, the complainant argued that the filing with the office of city prosecutor
constitutes an interruption to the prescription.

ISSUE:

Is filing complaint to city prosecutor office considered a “judicial proceeding” that can interrupt
prescription of crime under B.P. 22?

HELD:

YES. Following a catena of cases, the court held that, there is no more distinction between cases
under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and those covered by special laws with respect to the
interruption of the period of prescription; that the institution of proceedings for preliminary
investigation in the office of prosecutor against accused interrupts the period of prescription.

Following the factual finding the crime was committed sometime in 1995, the filing of complaint on
September 1997, two (2) years from the commission of the crime validly interrupts the running of
prescription. Therefore the action against the respondent Pangilinan did not prescribe.