Republic of the Philippines In I.S. No., 2003-1997, Jadewell thru [sic] its General Manager Norina C.

Tan,
SUPREME COURT Renato B. Dulay and Ringo Sacliwan alleged in their affidavit-complaint that on
Manila May 7, 2003, along Upper Mabini Street, Baguio City, herein respondents Benedicto
Balajadia, Jeffrey Walan and two (2) John Does forcibly removed the clamp on the
THIRD DIVISION wheel of a Nissan Cefiro car with Plate No. UTD 933, belonging to Jeffrey Walan
which was then considered illegally parked for failure to pay the prescribed parking
fee. Such car was earlier rendered immobile by such clamp by Jadewell personnel.
G.R. No. 169588 October 7, 2013
After forcibly removing the clamp, respondents took and carried it away depriving
its owner, Jadewell, its use and value which is ₱26,250.00. According to
JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION represented by its complainants, the fine of ₱500.00 and the declamping fee of ₱500.00 were not paid
manager and authorized representative Norma Tan, Petitioner, by the respondents.2
vs.
HON. JUDGE NELSON F. LIDUA SR., Presiding Judge of The Municipal
The incident resulted in two cases filed by petitioner and respondents against each
Trial Court Branch 3, Baguio City, BENEDICTO BALAJADIA, EDWIN ANG,
other. Petitioner Jadewell filed two cases against respondents: Robbery under I.S.
“JOHN DOES” and “PETER DOES” Respondents.
Nos. 2003-1996 and 2003-1997. Petitioner filed an Affidavit-Complaint against
respondents Benedicto Balajadia, Jeffrey Walan, and three (3) John Does, one of
DECISION whom was eventually identified as respondent Ramon Ang. The Affidavit-Complaint
was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City on May 23, 2003.3 A
LEONEN, J.: preliminary investigation took place on May 28, 2003. Respondent Benedicto
Balajadia likewise filed a case charging Jadewell president, Rogelio Tan, and four
We are asked to rule on this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the (4) of Jadewell’s employees with Usurpation of Authority/Grave Coercion in I.S. No.
Rules of Court, praying that the assailed Decision of Branch 7 of the Regional Trial 2003-1935.
Court of Baguio City and Order dated August 15, 2005 be reversed and that Criminal
Case Nos. 112934 and 112935 be ordered reinstated and prosecuted before the In his Counter-affidavit for the two cases he filed for himself and on behalf of his co-
Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City. respondents, respondent Benedicto Balajadia denied that his car was parked illegally.
He admitted that he removed the clamp restricting the wheel of his car since he
Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation is a private parking operator duly alleged that the placing of a clamp on the wheel of the vehicle was an illegal act. He
authorized to operate and manage the parking spaces in Baguio City pursuant to City alleged further that he removed the clamp not to steal it but to remove the vehicle
Ordinance 003-2000. It is also authorized under Section 13 of the City Ordinance to from its clamp so that he and his family could continue using the car. He also
render any motor vehicle immobile by placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is confirmed that he had the clamp with him, and he intended to use it as a piece of
illegally parked.1 evidence to support the Complaint he filed against Jadewell.4

According to the Resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, San Fernando In the Resolution5 of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of San Fernando City,
City, La Union, the facts leading to the filing of the Informations are the following: La Union, Acting City Prosecutor Mario Anacleto Banez found probable cause to
file a case of Usurpation of Authority against the petitioner. Regarding the case of
Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation (Jadewell), thru [sic] its General Manager Robbery against respondents, Prosecutor Banez stated that:
Norma Tan and Jadewell personnel Januario S. Ulpindo and Renato B. Dulay alleged
in their affidavit-complaint that on May 17, 2003, the respondents in I.S No. 2003- We find no probable cause to charge respondents in these two (2) cases for the
1996 Edwin Ang, Benedicto Balajadia and John Doe dismantled, took and carried felony of Robbery. The elements of Robbery, specifically the intent to gain and force
away the clamp attached to the left front wheel of a Mitsubishi Adventure with Plate upon things are absent in the instant cases, thereby negating the existence of the
No. WRK 624 owned by Edwin Ang. Accordingly, the car was then illegally parked crime.
and left unattended at a Loading and Unloading Zone. The value of the clamp
belonging to Jadewell which was allegedly forcibly removed with a piece of metal is xxxx
₱26,250.00. The fines of ₱500.00 for illegal parking and the declamping fee of
₱500.00 were also not paid by the respondents herein.
We, however, respectfully submit that the acts of respondents in removing the wheel 1. The accused in this case are charged with violation of Baguio City
clamps on the wheels of the cars involved in these cases and their failure to pay the Ordinance No. 003-2000.
prescribed fees were in violation of Sec. 21 of Baguio City Ordinance No. 003-2000
which prescribes fines and penalties for violations of the provisions of such 2. Article 89 of the Revised Penal [sic] provides that criminal liability is
ordinance. Certainly, they should not have put the law into their own hands. totally extinguished by prescription of the crime.
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Act No. 3326, as amended by Act No. 3763, provides: “Section 1. x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, there is probable cause against all the Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribed [sic] after
respondents, except Jeffrey Walan or Joseph Walan (who has been dragged into this two months.”
controversy only by virtue of the fact that he was still the registered owner of the
Nissan Cefiro car) for violation of Section 21 of City Ord. No. 003-2000 in both 4. As alleged in the Information, the offense charged in this case was
cases and we hereby file the corresponding informations against them in Court.6 committed on May 7, 2003. 5. As can be seen from the right hand corner of
the Information, the latter was filed with this Honorable Court on October 2,
Prosecutor Banez issued this Resolution on July 25, 2003. 2003, almost five (5) months after the alleged commission of the offense
charged. Hence, criminal liability of the accused in this case, if any, was
On October 2, 2003, two criminal Informations were filed with the Municipal Trial already extinguished by prescription when the Information was filed.9
Court of Baguio City dated July 25, 2003, stating:
In an Order10 dated February 10, 2004, respondent Judge Nelson F. Lidua, Sr.,
That on May 17, 2003 at Baguio City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3, granted the
Court, the above-named accused with unity of action and concerted design, did then accused’s Motion to Quash and dismissed the cases.
and there, with unity of action and concerted design, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously forcibly dismantled [sic] and took [sic] an immobilizing clamp then Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 27, 2004 responding to the
attached to the left front wheel of a Mitsubishi Adventure vehicle with Plate No. February 10, 2004 Order11 to argue among other points that:
WRK 624 belonging to Edwin Ang which was earlier rendered immobilized by such
clamp by Jadewell Personnel’s for violation of the Baguio City ordinance No. 003- 6.b. For another, the offenses charged have not yet prescribed. Under the law, the
2600 to the damage and prejudice of private complainant Jadewell Parking System
period of prescription of offenses shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint
Corporation (Jadewell) which owns such clamp worth ₱26,250.00 and other
or information. While it may be true that the Informations in these cases have been
consequential damages. filed only on October 2, 2003, the private complainant has, however, filed its
criminal complaint on May 23, 2003, well within the prescribed period.12
CONTRARY TO LAW,

7
Respondents filed their Opposition13 on March 24, 2004, and petitioner filed a
San Fernando City, La Union for Baguio City, this 25th day of July 2003. Reply14 on April 1, 2004.

The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 112934 and 112935 with the The respondent judge released a Resolution15 dated April 16, 2004 upholding the
Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3. Respondent Benedicto Balajadia Order granting respondents’ Motion to Quash. The Resolution held that:
and the other accused through their counsel Paterno Aquino filed a January 20, 2004
Motion to Quash and/or Manifestation8 on February 2, 2004. The Motion to Quash
For the guidance of the parties, the Court will make an extended resolution on one of
and/or Manifestation sought the quashal of the two Informations on the following
the ground [sic] for the motion to quash, which is that the criminal action has been
grounds: extinguishment of criminal action or liability due to prescription; failure of
extinguished on grounds of prescription.
the Information to state facts that charged an offense; and the imposition of charges
on respondents with more than one offense.
These offenses are covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure being alleged
violations of City Ordinances.
In their Motion to Quash, respondents argued that:
Under Section 9 of the Rule [sic] on Summary Procedure, the running of the Summary Procedure, these criminal cases “shall be commenced only by
prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is filed in Court and not on information.” These criminal cases cannot be commenced in any other way.
any date before that (Zaldivia vs. Reyes, Jr. G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992, En
Banc). Moreover, the ruling of the Supreme Court in Zaldivia vs. Reyes cited in the assailed
Resolution does not apply in this case. The offense charged in Zaldivia is a violation
In case of conflict, the Rule on Summary Procedure as the special law prevails over of municipal ordinance in which case, the complaint should have been filed directly
Sec. 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and also Rule 110 of the in court as required by Section 9 of the old Rules on Summary Procedure. On the
Rules of Criminal Procedure must yield to Act No. 3326 or “AN ACT TO other hand, Criminal Case Nos. 112934 and 112935 are for violations of a city
ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED ordinance and as aforestated, “shall be commenced only by information.”18
BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE
WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN” (Ibid). Thus, petitioner contended that the filing of the criminal complaint with the Office of
the City Prosecutor stopped the running of the two-month prescriptive period. Hence,
Petitioner then filed a Petition16 for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial the offenses charged have not prescribed.
Court of Baguio City. The case was raffled to Branch 7 of the Regional Trial Court
of Baguio City. Petitioners contended that the respondent judge committed grave In their Comment,19 respondents maintained that the respondent judge did not
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing Criminal gravely abuse his discretion. They held that Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended,
Case Nos. 112934 and 112935 on the ground of prescription. Petitioners argued that provides that:
the respondent judge ruled erroneously saying that the prescriptive period for the
offenses charged against the private respondents was halted by the filing of the
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the
Complaint/Information in court and not when the Affidavit-Complaints were filed
violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery
with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City. Petitioner cited Section 1 of
thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment.
Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure:
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the
x x x “criminal actions shall be instituted x x x in x x x other chartered cities, the
guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for
complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided
reasons not constituting jeopardy.20 (Emphasis supplied)
in their charter” and the last paragraph thereof states that “the institution of the
criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription of the offense
charged unless otherwise provided in special laws.”17 Respondents argued that Zaldivia v. Reyes21 held that the proceedings mentioned in
Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, refer to judicial proceedings . Thus, this
Court, in Zaldivia, held that the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the
Petitioner contended further that: Provincial Prosecutor was not a judicial proceeding. The prescriptive period
commenced from the alleged date of the commission of the crime on May 7, 2003
the filing of the criminal complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio and ended two months after on July 7, 2003. Since the Informations were filed with
City, not the filing of the criminal information before this Honorable Court, is the the Municipal Trial Court on October 2, 2003, the respondent judge did not abuse its
reckoning point in determining whether or not the criminal action in these cases had discretion in dismissing Criminal Case Nos. 112934 and 112935.
prescribed.
In a Decision dated April 20, 2005, the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City Branch
xxxx 7, through Judge Clarence F. Villanueva, dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. The
Regional Trial Court held that, since cases of city ordinance violations may only be
The offenses charged in Criminal Case Nos. 112934 and 112935 are covered by the commenced by the filing of an Information, then the two-month prescription period
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, not by the old Rules on Summary Procedure. may only be interrupted by the filing of Informations (for violation of City
Considering that the offenses charged are for violations of a City Ordinance, the Ordinance 003-2000) against the respondents in court. The Regional Trial Court of
criminal cases can only be commenced by informations. Thus, it was only legally Baguio City, Branch 7, ruled in favor of the respondents and upheld the respondent
and procedurally proper for the petitioner to file its complaint with the Office of the judge’s Order dated February 10, 2004 and the Resolution dated April 16, 2004.
City Prosecutor of Baguio City as required by Section 11 of the new Rules on
Petitioners then filed a May 17, 2005 Motion for Reconsideration which was denied prescription period, Act No. 3326, as amended, is the only statute that provides for
by the Regional Trial Court in an August 15, 2005 Order. any prescriptive period for the violation of special laws and municipal ordinances.
No other special law provides any other prescriptive period, and the law does not
Hence, this Petition. provide any other distinction. Petitioner may not argue that Act No. 3326 as
amended does not apply.
The principal question in this case is whether the filing of the Complaint with the
Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23, 2003 tolled the prescription period of the In Romualdez v. Hon. Marcelo,27 this Court defined the parameters of prescription:
commission of the offense charged against respondents Balajadia, Ang, “John Does,”
and “Peter Does.” In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following should be
considered: (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time the
Petitioner contends that the prescription period of the offense in Act No. 3326, as period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time the prescriptive period was
amended by Act No. 3763, does not apply because respondents were charged with interrupted.28 (Citation omitted)
the violation of a city ordinance and not a municipal ordinance. In any case,
assuming arguendo that the prescriptive period is indeed two months, filing a With regard to the period of prescription, it is now without question that it is two
Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor tolled the prescription period of months for the offense charged under City Ordinance 003-2000.
two months. This is because Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that, in Manila
and in other chartered cities, the Complaint shall be filed with the Office of the The commencement of the prescription period is also governed by statute. Article 91
Prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters. of the Revised Penal Code reads:

In their Comment,22 respondents maintain that respondent Judge Lidua did not err in Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of prescription shall
dismissing the cases based on prescription. Also, respondents raise that the other commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended
grounds for dismissal they raised in their Motion to Quash, namely, that the facts party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the
charged constituted no offense and that respondents were charged with more than complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings
one offense, were sustained by the Metropolitan Trial Court. Also, respondents argue terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably
that petitioner had no legal personality to assail the Orders, since Jadewell was not stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
assailing the civil liability of the case but the assailed Order and Resolution. This
was contrary to the ruling in People v. Judge Santiago23 which held that the private
The offense was committed on May 7, 2003 and was discovered by the attendants of
complainant may only appeal the civil aspect of the criminal offense and not the
the petitioner on the same day. These actions effectively commenced the running of
crime itself.
the prescription period.

In the Reply,24 petitioner argues that the respondent judge only dismissed the case on
The procedural rules that govern this case are the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary
the ground of prescription, since the Resolution dated April 16, 2004 only cited that
Procedure.
ground. The Order dated February 10, 2004 merely stated but did not specify the
grounds on which the cases were dismissed. Petitioner also maintains that the
proceedings contemplated in Section 2 of Act No. 3326 must include the preliminary SECTION 1. Scope – This rule shall govern the summary procedure in the
investigation proceedings before the National Prosecution Service in light of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial
Rules on Criminal Procedure25 and Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within
their jurisdiction:
Lastly, petitioner maintains that it did have legal personality, since in a Petition for
Certiorari, “persons aggrieved x x x may file a verified petition”26 before the court. xxxx

The Petition is denied. B. Criminal Cases:

The resolution of this case requires an examination of both the substantive law and (1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
the procedural rules governing the prosecution of the offense. With regard to the
 (2) Violations of the rental law; Where paragraph (b) of the section does speak of “offenses falling under the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,” the
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances (Emphasis supplied) obvious reference is to Section 32(2) of B.P. No. 129, vesting in such courts:

Section 11 of the Rules provides that: (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of
not exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of not more than four thousand
pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, regardless of other imposable accessory
Sec. 11. How commenced. — The filing of criminal cases falling within the scope of
or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or
this Rule shall be either by complaint or by information: Provided, however, that in
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof; Provided,
Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities, such cases shall be commenced only by
however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence
information, except when the offense cannot be prosecuted de officio.
they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not
exceed twenty thousand pesos.
The Local Government Code provides for the classification of cities. Section 451
reads:
These offenses are not covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
SEC. 451. Cities, Classified. – A city may either be component or highly urbanized:
Under Section 9 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, “the complaint or information
Provided, however, that the criteria established in this Code shall not affect the
shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or
classification and corporate status of existing cities. Independent component cities
preliminary investigation.” Both parties agree that this provision does not prevent the
are those component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for
prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to. However, the
provincial elective officials. Independent component cities shall be independent of
case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the
the province.
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
Cities in the Philippines that were created by law can either be highly urbanized in court and not on any date before that.
cities or component cities. An independent component city has a charter that
proscribes its voters from voting for provincial elective officials. It stands that all
cities as defined by Congress are chartered cities. In cases as early as United States v. This interpretation is in consonance with the afore-quoted Act No. 3326 which says
that the period of prescription shall be suspended “when proceedings are instituted
Pascual Pacis,29 this Court recognized the validity of the Baguio Incorporation Act or
against the guilty party.” The proceedings referred to in Section 2 thereof are
Act No. 1963 of 1909, otherwise known as the charter of Baguio City.
“judicial proceedings,” contrary to the submission of the Solicitor General that they
include administrative proceedings. His contention is that we must not distinguish as
As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an the law does not distinguish. As a matter of fact, it does.
Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an
ordinance. The respondent judge was correct when he applied the rule in Zaldivia v.
At any rate, the Court feels that if there be a conflict between the Rule on Summary
Reyes.
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
In Zaldivia v. Reyes, the violation of a municipal ordinance in Rodriguez, Rizal also and Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the latter must again yield because
featured similar facts and issues with the present case. In that case, the offense was this Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, is not allowed to “diminish,
committed on May 11, 1990. The Complaint was received on May 30, 1990, and the increase or modify substantive rights” under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the
Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, Constitution. Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right.30
1990. This Court ruled that:
Jurisprudence exists showing that when the Complaint is filed with the Office of the
As it is clearly provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure that among the offenses Prosecutor who then files the Information in court, this already has the effect of
it covers are violations of municipal or city ordinances, it should follow that the tolling the prescription period. The recent People v. Pangilinan31categorically stated
charge against the petitioner, which is for violation of a municipal ordinance of that Zaldivia v. Reyes is not controlling as far as special laws are concerned.
Rodriguez, is governed by that rule and not Section 1 of Rule 110. 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.
There is no distinction between the filing of the Information contemplated in the Finally, as for the prescription period, the Manual provides that:
Rules of Criminal Procedure and in the Rules of Summary Procedure. When the
representatives of the petitioner filed the Complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor SEC. 20. How Period of Prescription Computed and Interrupted. - For an offense
of Baguio, the prescription period was running. It continued to run until the filing of penalized under the Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription commences to
the Information. They had two months to file the Information and institute the run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
judicial proceedings by filing the Information with the Municipal Trial Court. The authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted:
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
a) by the filing of the complaint with the Office of the City/Provincial
which to file the Information. Respondents were correct in arguing that the petitioner
Prosecutor; or with the Office of the Ombudsman; or
only had two months from the discovery and commission of the offense before it
prescribed within which to file the Information with the Municipal Trial Court.
b) by the filing of the complaint or information with the court even if it is
merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation, or even if
Unfortunately, when the Office of the Prosecutor filed the Informations on October
the court where the complaint or information is filed cannot try the case on
5, 2003, the period had already prescribed. Thus, respondent Judge Nestor Lidua, Sr.
its merits.
did not err when he ordered the dismissal of the case against respondents. According
to the Department of Justice – National Prosecutors Service Manual for Prosecutors,
an Information is defined under Part I, Section 5 as: However, for an offense covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, the period of
prescription is interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in court.
SEC. 5. Information. - An information is the accusation in writing charging a person
with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor, and filed with the court. The xxxx
information need not be placed under oath by the prosecutor signing the same.
For violation of a special law or ordinance, the period of prescription shall
The prosecutor must, however, certify under oath that – commence to run from the day of the commission of the violation, and if the same is
not known at the time, from the discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings
for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted only by the
a) he has examined the complainant and his witnesses; filing of the complaint or information in court and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy. (Emphasis
b) there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed supplied).1âwphi1
and that the accused is probably guilty thereof;
Presidential Decree No. 127532 reorganized the Department of Justice’s Prosecution
c) the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted Staff and established Regional State Prosecution Offices. These Regional State
against him; and Prosecution Offices were assigned centers for particular regions where the
Informations will be filed. Section 6 provides that the area of responsibility of the
d) the accused was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Region 1 Center located in San Fernando, La Union includes Abra, Benguet, Ilocos
Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union, Mt. Province, Pangasinan, and the cities of Baguio,
As for the place of the filing of the Information, the Manual also provides that: Dagupan, Laoag, and San Carlos.

SEC. 12. Place of the commission of offense. - The complaint or information is The Regional Prosecutor for Region 1 or his/her duly assigned prosecutor was
sufficient if it states that the crime charged was committed or some of the ingredients designated to file the Information within the two-month period provided for in Act
thereof occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the No. 3326, as amended.1âwphi1
particular place in which the crime was committed is an essential element of the
crime, e.g. in a prosecution for violation of the provision of the Election Code which The failure of the prosecutor to seasonably file the Information is unfortunate as it
punishes the carrying of a deadly weapon in a “polling place,” or if it is necessary to resulted in the dismissal of the case against the private respondents. It stands that the
identify the offense charged, e.g., the domicile in the offense of “violation of doctrine of Zaldivia is applicable to ordinances and their prescription period. It also
domicile.” upholds the necessity of filing the Information in court in order to toll the period.
Zaldivia also has this to say concerning the effects of its ruling:
 14
The Court realizes that under the above interpretation, a crime may prescribe even if Id. at 50-52.
the complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutor’s office if, intentionally or not,
he delays the institution of the necessary judicial proceedings until it is too late. 15
Id. at 53-54.
However, that possibility should not justify a misreading of the applicable rules
beyond their obvious intent as reasonably deduced from their plain language. 16
Id. at 55-63. The Petition was dated June 18, 2004.

The remedy is not a distortion of the meaning of the rules but a rewording thereof to 17
Id. at 59.
prevent the problem here sought to be corrected.33
18
Id. at 59 and 60.
WHEREFORE the Petition is DENIED.
19
Id. at 64.
SO ORDERED.
20
Id. at 65 citing Act No. 3326.
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
Associate Justice 21
G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 277.
Footnotes 22
Rollo, p. 92.
1
Baguio City Ordinance Numbered 003, Series of 2000, Sec. 13. 23
255 Phil. 851 (1989).
2
Rollo, p. 34. 24
Rollo, p. 100.
3
Id. at 21-24. 25
A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective December 1, 2000.
4
Id. at 34. 26
Rules of Civil Procedure (1997), Rule 65, Sec. 1.
5
Id. at 32-35. 27
507 Phil. 727 (2005).
6
Id. at 34-35. 28
Id. at 741.
7
Id. at 37. 29
31 Phil. 524 (1915).
8
Id. at 38. 30
Zaldivia v. Reyes, supra note 21, at 282-284.
9
Id. at 39. 31
G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 105.
10
Id. at 43. 32
Presidential Decree No. 1275, “Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the
11 Department of Justice and the Offices of the Provincial and City Fiscals,
Id. at 44. Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, And Creating the National
12
Prosecution Service” (1978), Sec. 6.
Id. at 46.
33
13
Id., per note 18, 284.
Id. at 48-49.