Luis Panaguiton, Jr. vs. Department of Justice, et al.

G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008; per Tinga, J.

Facts

Cawili borrowed various sums of money from the petitioner. Cawili and his business associate, Tongson, jointly issued in favor of petitioner three checks which bear the signature of both in payment of the said loans. Upon presentment for payment, the checks were dishonored. Panaguiton, made demands but to no avail and so he filed a complaint against Cawili and Tongson for violating BP 22.

During the preliminary investigation, only Tongson appeared and filed his counter-affidavit. Tongson alleged that he himself filed some complaints against Cawili and they are not associates. Panaguiton showed documents proving the signatures of Tongson to strengthen his complaint against Tongson. In a resolution, City Prosecutor found probable cause only against Cawili and dismissed the charges against Tongson. A case was filed against Cawili before the proper court but the petitioner filed a partial appeal before the Department of Justice. Assistant City Prosecutor Sampaga dismissed the complaint against Tongson since the offense had already prescribed.

Issue

Whether or not the offense has prescribed as Act No. 3326 applies to violation of special acts and that Act No. 3326 states that prescription shall be interrupted when judicial proceedings are instituted

Ruling

When Act No. 3326 was passed, preliminary investigation of criminal offenses was conducted by justices of the peace, thus, the phraseology in the law, “institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment,” and the prevailing rule at the time was that once a complaint is filed with the justice of the peace for preliminary investigation, the prescription of the offense is halted.

The court ruled and so hold that the offense has not yet prescribed. Petitioner’s filing of his complaint-affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor signified the commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused and thus effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses they had been charged under B.P. Blg. 22.