Sr.
Fidelis Arambulo vs Laqui
1 Dec 21, 1993 Sr. Fidelis circulated a letter with malicious Period of prescription
imputations against Sr. Helen and Sr. Bernadine BEGINS.
2 Feb 2, 1994 Sr. Helen and Sr. Bernadine filed a joint- QC City Period of prescription
complaint affidavit for libel against Sr. Fidelis. Prosecutor INTERRUPTED – 42 days.
3 Preliminary investigation was conducted. QC City
Prosecutor
4 May 18, 1994 An information for libel was filed against Sr. QC MTC Proceeded to conduct trial.
Fidelis.
5 Sr. Fidelis filed a Demurrer to Evidence. QC MTC Denied. No jurisdiction.
Ordered the case to be
forwarded to RTC.
6 Nov 29, 1996 Case was forwarded to RTC. RTC
7 Jan 3, 1997 Sr. Fidelis filed a motion to dismiss on the RTC Dismissed. Offense had
ground of lack of jurisdiction and prescription not yet prescribed. Ordered
of the offense. City Prosecutor to re-file
Information with RTC.
8 Apr 27, 1997 Information for libel was re-filed with RTC. RTC
9 Jun 17, 1997 Sr. Fidelis filed a motion to quash on the RTC Denied. Motion for
ground of prescription. reconsideration also
denied.
1 Sr. Fidelis appealed to CA: RT erred in holding CA Dismissed. Libel had not
0 that the offense of libel has not yet prescribed. yet prescribed.
1 Sr. Fidelis brought the issue to SC: SC NO. Crime had not
1 1. Prescription commenced to run when Ass. prescribed.
City Prosecutor recommended the filing of
information for libel.
2. Prescriptive period could have been
interrupted had the Information been filed
with RTC (proper jurisdiction for libel).
3. However, it was filed before MTC and the
period of prescription continued to run.
4. When information for libel was finally filed
with RTC, the crime had already
prescribed.
RULING:
Article 90 of RPC Libel prescribes in 1 year
Article 91 of RPC Prescription commences upon discovery of the crime.
It shall be interrupted by filing of complaint or information.
It shall run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted
or acquitted (said court must have power to convict or acquit the accused).
XPN: Court conducting preliminary investigation can cause termination without
conviction or acquittal, if Court discharges accused because no prima facie evidence had
been shown.
Landmark case of JBL Reyes: Filing of complaint with the Municipal Court, even if for preliminary
People vs Olarte examination or investigation, SHOULD and DOES interrupt period of prescription EVEN IF
THE COURT WHERE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS FILED CANNOT TRY THE
CASE ON THE MERITS.
1. Article 91 of RPC does not distinguish whether complaint is filed for preliminary
investigation, examination or action on the merits.
2. Even if the court where complaint/information is filed may only investigate the
case, its actuations already represent the initial step of the proceedings against the
offender.
3. Unjust to the injured property.
Francisco vs CA Broadened the scope of People vs Olarte.
Filing of complaint with the fiscal’s office also suspends the running of the prescriptive
period.
Sr. Fidelis’ argument When City Prosecutor recommended the filing of libel charges, the proceedings against
that the period of her were not terminated because a prima facie case for libel was found against her.
prescription ran The resolution of the CP actually directed the continuation of the proceedings against Sr.
again when Fidelis.
Prosecutor’s Office
recommended the Therefore, when information for libel was filed with MTC, the period of prescription for the
filing of a criminal crime was still suspended.
complaint is
INCORRECT.
Confusion as to It took effect on April 15, 1994.
proper venue was It expanded jurisdiction of MeTC, MTC, and MCTC to include offenses punishable with
brought about by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years. Libel is punishable by imprisonment from 6m and 1d
passage of RA to 4y BUT it is excluded from said law. Therefore, exclusive jurisdiction remains with RTC.
7691 Confusion was clarified when SC released an AO.
The mistake of the City Prosecutor in filing the complaint with MTC and MTC taking
cognizance of the case I understandable. SUCH MISTAKE SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE
THE OFFENDED PARTY.
The period of prescription for the crime was interrupted when the complaint was lodged with the City
Prosecutor and remained interrupted pending the termination of the case. RTC correctly assumed
jurisdiction over the as the offense for libel has not yet prescribed.
People vs Pangilinan
1 1995 Theresa Pangilinan issued 9 checks valuing at P9.65M
in favor of Virginia Malolos which were dishonored
upon presentment for payment.
2 Sep 16, 1997 Virginia Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa QC City
and violation of BP 22 against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan. Prosecutor
3 Dec 5, 1997 Theresa filed a civil case for accounting. RTC
Valenzuela
4 Theresa filed a Petition to Suspend Proceedings on QC City
the Ground of Prejudicial Question Prosecutor
5 Mar 2, 1998 Ass. City Prosecutor recommended suspension of
criminal proceedings pending outcome of civil action.
6 Virginia raised the matter before DOJ. DOJ Reversed resolution
of QC City
Prosecutor and
ordered filing of
Informations for
violation of BP 22.
7 The 7 other checks were dismissed. 2 counts for MTC QC
violation of BP 22 were filed against Theresa.
8 Theresa filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the MTC QC Judge granted the
Information and Defer the Issuance of Warrant of motion
Arrest. Claiming that the crime has prescribed.
9 Oct 26, 2000 Virginia filed a notice of appeal to RTC. RTC Reversed MeTC
order
1 Theresa filed a petition for review. SC Referred the petition
0 to CA.
1 CA dismissed the criminal case as the crime has CA Dismissed.
1 prescribed.
1. Act 3326 – BP 22 cases only have 4 yrs. to file
complaint. Crime was committed in 1995 and
information was filed only on 2000 (5 yrs.)
2. Act 3326 – Prescription shall be interrupted
when proceedings are instituted against the
guilty person.
3. Zaldivia vs Reyes – “proceedings” refer to
judicial proceedings. It must be the filing of the
complaint or information with the proper court.
1 Virginia’s Arguments: SC Granted. CA
2 1. While Act 3326 governs the period of decision is reversed.
prescription for violations of special laws, it is Filing of the
the institution of criminal actions that interrupts complaint
the period of prescription of the offense. interrupted the
2. Her filing of the complaint-affidavit on Sept prescriptive period.
1997 with the QC City Prosecutor effectively
interrupted the running of the prescriptive
period.
1 Theresa’s Arguments: SC
3 1. Reiterates the ruling of CA that filing of the
complaint before QC City Prosecutor did not
interrupt the running of the prescriptive period
as the offense charged is special law violation.
RULING:
Act 3326 Law applicable to BP 22 (special law that imposes penalty of imprisonment of 30d to 1yr).
Section 1, Act 3326 BP 22 violation shall prescribe after 4 years
Section 2, Act 3326 Prescription commences on the day of commission of the violation OR discovery thereof
and institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
It shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person.
It shall run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
People vs Olarte Filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court, even if it be merely for purposes of
preliminary examination or investigation, interrupts the period of prescription of the
criminal responsibility, even if the court cannot try the case on the merits.
Theresa’s contention No distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by special laws with
that a different rule respect to interruption of period of prescription.
should be applied to
cases involving
special laws is
INCORRECT.
Zaldivia vs Reyes In cases involving special law, the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation
Ruling not against the accused interrupts the period of prescription.
controlling in
special laws
Panaguiton vs DOJ Commencement of proceedings for the prosecution of the accused before the City
Prosecutor effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the offense (BP 22).
1. Prescription commenced on 1995 upon notification to Theresa by Virginia of the dishonored checks.
2. Affidavit-complaints against Theresa was filed on September 16, 1997 but only reached MeTC on
February 13, 2000 because of the prejudicial question issue.
3. The commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of Theresa before the City Prosecutor
effectively interrupted the prescriptive periods.
4. It was Theresa’s motions that caused the suspension of the criminal proceedings, causing the filing in
Court of the initiated proceedings only in 2000.
Herminio Disini vs Sandiganbayan
Disini is the husband of Imelda Marcos’ first cousin
(Paciencia Escolin Disini)
1 Ombudsman filed 2 Informations against Disini. Sandiganbaya
1. Corruption of public officials (Art 212 in n
relation to Art 210 of RPC)
2. Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act
Criminal Case 1
1974 – Feb 1986 Disini offered, promised and gave gifts to Pres.
Marcos consisting of
1. 2.5 billion shares in Vulcan Industrial and
Mining Corporation
2. 4 billion shares in The Energy Corporation
3. Subcontracts to Engineering and
Construction Company of Asia
in consideration of Burns and Roe, and
Westinghouse Electrical Corporation (Disini) to do
the engineering, architecture and construction of
Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Project (PNPPP)
Criminal Case 2
Disini with Pres. Marcos, in connection with the
PNPPP, requested and received:
1. $1M from Burns and Roe
2. $17M from Westinghouse Electrical
Corporation
in consideration of Burns and Roe, and
Westinghouse Electrical Corporation (Disini) to do
the engineering, architecture and construction of
PNPPP
August 2, 2004 Disini filed a motion to quash alleging that: Sandiganbaya Denied.
1. Criminal action had prescribed n
2. Information did not conform to the prescribed
form
Sept 16, 2004 Disini voluntarily submitted himself for Sandiganbaya Denied.
arraignment for permission to travel abroad n
Disini moved for reconsideration. Sandiganbaya Denied.
n
RULING:
The offenses charged in the Informations have not yet prescribed.
Criminal Case 1
Article 90 of RPC The crime of corruption of public officials is punished under Art 212 of RPC.
Its prescription period is subject under Art 90 of RPC which is 15 years.
Article 91 of RPC Prescription commences from day on which crime is discovered.
Criminal Case 2
Section 11, RA 3019 Prescription period for violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt practices act is covered by RA
(as amended by 3019, as amended by BP 195.
BP 195) Its prescription period is 15 years.
Prior to amendment on March 16, 1982: 10 years
Crime charged for Disini covers 1974-February 1986 so it is covered by the amendment
Section 2, RA 3019 Prescription shall commence on day of commission of violation OR discovery thereof
and institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment
It shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person
It shall run again if proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double
jeopardy.
Presidential AdHoc GR: prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day the crime is committed
Fact Finding XPN: “blameless person doctrine” in Section 2, Act 3326
Committee vs Statute of limitations runs only upon discovery of the fact of the invasion of a right which
Behest Loans will support a cause of action.
In short, Courts cannot apply statute of limitations where plaintiff does not know or has no
reasonable means of knowing the existence of the cause of action.
Prescriptive period did not begin on 1974. It shall begin on 1986.
1. Considering that it was during Marcos Regime, it would have been unreasonable to expect that the
discovery of the unlawful transactions was possible.
2. It was only through PCGG’s exhaustive investigation that the transactions were discovered.
It was interrupted on 1991.
1. Criminal complaints to conduct the preliminary ombudsman was filed to Ombudsman by PCGG
No prescription yet as only 5 years have elapsed since 1986.
Whether punishable by RPC or special law, it is the filing of the complaint or information in the office of
the public prosecutor for purposes of the preliminary investigation which interrupts the period of
prescription.
The Informations were sufficient in form and substance.
Section 6, Rule 110 Sufficient if it contains:
of Rules of Court 1. Name of accused
2. Designation of offense
3. Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense
4. Name of Offended party
5. Date of commission of offense
6. Place where offense was committed
Wilbert Tolentino vs People, Eva Rose Pua, Judge Maria Luisa Lesle
1 This is an offshoot case in which the Court issued a Resolution (August 6, 2018) which dismissed the petition
for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of TRO for the following reasons.
1. Failure to state date of receipt of the assailed order as required by Sec 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court
2. Failure to sufficiently show that RTC gravely abused its discretion in rendering its 2 orders
2 Wilbert claims that the assailed RTC Orders violate Section 14, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution for failing to
state clearly and distinctly the facts and law.
3 Wilbert cited NICOS Industrial Corporation vs CA:
1. The constitutional provision does not apply to interlocutory orders such as RTC’s Order which denied
his motion to quash BECAUSE the provision refers only to decision on the merits and not to orders of
the RTC resolving incidental matters
RULING:
Whether or not the action to file a petition for libel has prescribed. NO.
Section 6, RA RA 10175 or Anti-Cyber Crime Law does not state the prescriptive period. But the new
10175 prescriptive period for the crime of libel in relation to RA 10175 can be derived from the
penalty imposed on the said crime.
The penalty to be imposed shall be 1 degree higher than that provided for by RPC as
amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
Former penalty: prision correccional in min and med
Present penalty: prision correccional in max to prision mayor in min
The new penalty is now afflictive.
Art 90 of RPC Crime of libel in relation to RA 10175 prescribes in 15 years
Eva Rose Pua’s filing of complaint on August 8, 2017 against Tolentino’s Facebook post dated April 29,
2015 is still within the prescriptive period for libel in relation to RA 10175.
Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over cyberlibel. YES.
Sec 21 of RA Vests with RTC the jurisdiction without any qualification as to the place where the same
10175 should be filed.
Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the PH or committed with the
use of any computer wholly or partly situated in PH, or when commission caused damage to
a person who was at the time in PH
Sec 2, Rule 4 of All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal
Rules of Court plaintiffs reside, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants reside.
Given that there is no qualification as to where a criminal action for libel in relation to RA 10175 must be
filed, the filing of the Information before RTC Quezon City is proper.
