Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 329 views

    Zaldivia vs. Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    1) The petitioner was charged with quarrying without a permit in violation of a municipal ordinance. 2) The petitioner argued the charge had prescribed as the information was filed more than 2 months after the alleged offense. 3) The court ruled that as this was a violation of a municipal ordinance, it was governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure rather than Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, a case is deemed commenced when the complaint or information is filed in court, not when a complaint is filed with the prosecutor's office. Therefore, the filing with the prosecutor's office did not toll the prescriptive period.

    Copyright:

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

    Zaldivia vs. Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    329 views2 pages
    1) The petitioner was charged with quarrying without a permit in violation of a municipal ordinance. 2) The petitioner argued the charge had prescribed as the information was filed more than 2 months after the alleged offense. 3) The court ruled that as this was a violation of a municipal ordinance, it was governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure rather than Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, a case is deemed commenced when the complaint or information is filed in court, not when a complaint is filed with the prosecutor's office. Therefore, the filing with the prosecutor's office did not toll the prescriptive period.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    4.-Zaldivia-vs.-Reyes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner was charged with quarrying without a permit in violation of a municipal ordinance. 2) The petitioner argued the charge had prescribed as the information was filed more than 2 months after the alleged offense. 3) The court ruled that as this was a violation of a municipal ordinance, it was governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure rather than Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, a case is deemed commenced when the complaint or information is filed in court, not when a complaint is filed with the prosecutor's office. Therefore, the filing with the prosecutor's office did not toll the prescriptive period.

    Copyright:

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

    Zaldivia vs. Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    1) The petitioner was charged with quarrying without a permit in violation of a municipal ordinance. 2) The petitioner argued the charge had prescribed as the information was filed more than 2 months after the alleged offense. 3) The court ruled that as this was a violation of a municipal ordinance, it was governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure rather than Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, a case is deemed commenced when the complaint or information is filed in court, not when a complaint is filed with the prosecutor's office. Therefore, the filing with the prosecutor's office did not toll the prescriptive period.

    Copyright:

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

    4. Zaldivia vs.

    Reyes
    Facts:
    The petitioner is charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor's permit in violation of
    Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1988, of the Municipality of Rodriguez, in the Province of Rizal.
    The offense was allegedly committed on May 11, 1990.1 The referral-complaint of the police was received by
    the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal on May 30, 1990. 2= The corresponding information was filed
    with the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990.
    The petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed, but the motion
    was denied. On appeal to the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, the denial was sustained by the respondent judge.
    Her conclusion citing the Rules on Summary Procedure and Act 3326 is that as the information was filed
    way beyond the two-month statutory period from the date of the alleged commission of the offense, the
    charge against her should have been dismissed on the ground of prescription.
    For its part, the prosecution contends that the prescriptive period was suspended upon the filing of the
    complaint against her with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. Agreeing with the respondent judge, the
    Solicitor General also invokes Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, providing as
    follows:
    Sec. 1. How Instituted — For offenses not subject to the rule on summary procedure in special cases, the
    institution of criminal action shall be as follows:
    a) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, by filing the complaint with the
    appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation therein;
    b) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, by
    filing the complaint directly with the said courts, or a complaint with the fiscal's office. However, in
    Metropolitan Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint may be filed only with the office of the fiscal.
    In all cases such institution interrupts the period of prescription of the offense charged
    Issue: Whether or not the filing of the information with the office of the Provincial Prosecutor tolled the
    running of the prescriptive period
    Ruling:
    No. As it is clearly provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure that among the offenses it covers are violations
    of municipal or city ordinances, it should follow that the charge against the petitioner, which is for violation of
    a municipal ordinance of Rodriguez, is governed by that rule and not Section 1 of Rule 110.
    Section 1 Rule 110 meaningfully begins with the phrase, "for offenses not subject to the rule on summary
    procedure in special cases," which plainly signifies that the section does not apply to offenses which are
    subject to summary procedure.
    Under Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, "the complaint or information shall be filed directly in
    court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation." 6 Both parties agree that
    this provision does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to.
    However, the case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the
    prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary investigation. This means that the running of the prescriptive
    period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that. At any
    rate, the Court feels that if there be a conflict between the Rule on Summary Procedure and Section 1 of Rule
    110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the former should prevail as the special law. And if there be a conflict
    between Act. No. 3326 and Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the latter must again yield because
    this Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, is not allowed to "diminish, increase or modify substantive
    rights" under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution. Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right.

    You might also like