Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 226 views

    Jadewell Vs Lidua

    Uploaded by

    Aly Rz
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether filing a complaint with the city prosecutor's office tolled the prescriptive period for offenses under a city ordinance. The Court ruled that under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of a criminal information tolls the prescriptive period for ordinance violations, not the filing of a complaint. As the information in this case was filed after the two-month prescriptive period expired, the offenses were deemed prescribed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jadewell Vs Lidua

    Uploaded by

    Aly Rz
    226 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether filing a complaint with the city prosecutor's office tolled the prescriptive period for offenses under a city ordinance. The Court ruled that under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of a criminal information tolls the prescriptive period for ordinance violations, not the filing of a complaint. As the information in this case was filed after the two-month prescriptive period expired, the offenses were deemed prescribed.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Jadewell vs Lidua

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether filing a complaint with the city prosecutor's office tolled the prescriptive period for offenses under a city ordinance. The Court ruled that under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of a criminal information tolls the prescriptive period for ordinance violations, not the filing of a complaint. As the information in this case was filed after the two-month prescriptive period expired, the offenses were deemed prescribed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    226 views2 pages

    Jadewell Vs Lidua

    Uploaded by

    Aly Rz
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether filing a complaint with the city prosecutor's office tolled the prescriptive period for offenses under a city ordinance. The Court ruled that under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of a criminal information tolls the prescriptive period for ordinance violations, not the filing of a complaint. As the information in this case was filed after the two-month prescriptive period expired, the offenses were deemed prescribed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Revised Rules on Summary Procedure

    Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation vs. Lidua, Sr.


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

    DOCTRINE:

    As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an


    Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged involved is an
    ordinance.

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation (Jadewell) is a private parking


    operator duly authorized to operate and manage the parking spaces in Baguio City
    pursuant to a city ordinance. It is also authorized under the said ordinance to render
    any motor vehicle immobile by placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally
    parked.

    In I.S. No. 2003-1997, Jadewell alleged in its Affidavit-Complaint that the


    respondents dismantled, took and carried the clamp attached to their cars which was
    illegally parked. It was also alleged that the fines for illegal parking and the declamping
    fee were not paid by respondents. The said offense was committed on May 7, 2003.

    The Affidavit-Complaint was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May
    23, 2003. A preliminary investigation took place on May 28, 2003. On October 2, 2003,
    two Criminal Informations were filed with the MTC-Baguio. Thereafter, respondents
    filed a Motion to Quash and/or Manifestation stating as ground extinguishment of
    criminal action or liability due to prescription, among others. Petitioner then filed a
    Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the filing of the criminal complaint
    with the Office of the City Prosecutor stopped the running of the two-month
    prescriptive period. Hence, the offenses charged have not prescribed.

    ISSUE:

    Did the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23,
    2003 toll the prescriptive period of the commission of the offense charged?

    RULING:

    No. The offense was committed on May 7, 2003 and was discovered by the
    attendants of the petitioner on the same day. These actions effectively commenced the
    running of the prescriptive period. The procedural rules that govern this case are the
    1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Under the Revised Rules on Summary
    Procedure, violations of municipal and city ordinances are within the coverage of the
    Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Section 11 of the same law further provides
    cases under its scope shall be commenced only by information, except when the offense
    cannot be prosecuted de officio.

    Thus, it is clear that only the filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive period
    where the crime charged involved is an ordinance.

    Jurisprudence exists showing that when the Complaint is filed with the Office of
    the Prosecutor who then files the Information in court, this already has the effect of
    tolling the prescription period of the crime charged. The case of People v. Pangilinan
    categorically stated that Zaldivia v. Reyes is not controlling as far as special laws are
    concerned. Pangilinan referred to other cases that upheld this principle as well.
    However, the doctrine of Pangilinan pertains to violations of special laws but not to
    ordinances.

    When the representatives of the petitioner filed the Complaint before the
    Provincial Prosecutor of Baguio, the prescription period was running. It continued to
    run until the filing of the Information. The conduct of the preliminary investigation, the
    original charge of Robbery, and the subsequent finding of the violation of the ordinance
    did not alter the period within which to file the Information.

    EFFECT OF A.M. NO. 19-10-20-SC ON THE RULING:

    A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC has no effect on the ruling.

    You might also like