Mateo, charged with violation of Republic 8777 (Sexual Harassment) in an Information filed before the Sandiganbayan on March 21, 2017, filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and Prescription, alleging that the crime charged has been extinguished by prescription as the information alleges that the crime was committed on or about February, 2013 to March 20, 2014 while the Information was filed only before the Sandiganbayan on March 21, 2017, hence, beyond the prescriptive period for filing complaints penalised by special laws, which is three years, as provided under Act 3326. For the accused, the complaint was belatedly filed, hence, should be dismissed. On the other hand, the Office of the Special Prosecutor argues that the running of the prescriptive period was interrupted by the filing of the complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation . At first, the Sandiganbayan denied Mateo’s motion, but reconsidered its decision and ordered the dismissal of the case based on prescription. The Office of the Special Prosecutor sought reconsideration of the dismissal, but the Sandiganbayan denied it, hence the OSP elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether of not the filing of the complaint for preliminary investigation interrupts the running of the prescriptive period for criminal cases covered by special laws.
The Ruling:
XXX
“The Petition is meritorious.
Prescription is one of the modes of totally extinguishing criminal liability. Prescription of a crime or offense is the loss or waiver by the State of its right to prosecute an act prohibited and punished by law. On the other hand, prescription of the penalty is the loss or waiver by the State of its right to punish the convict.
For felonies under the Revised Penal Code, prescription of crimes is governed by Articles 90 and 91, which read as follows:
Art. 90. Prescription of crimes. – Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in 20 years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in 15 years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in 10 years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in 5 years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in 1 year.
The offenses of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in 6 months.
Light offenses prescribe in 2 months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second, and third paragraphs of this article.
Art. 91. The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
While prescription for violations penalized by special acts and municipal ordinances is governed by Act 3326, otherwise known as “An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized By Special Laws and Municipal Ordinances, and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run,” as amended by Act 3763. The pertinent provisions provide that:
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this Act, special acts shall be acts defining and penalizing violations of the law not included in the Penal Code.
Here, it was undisputed that the respondent stands charged with violation of R.A. No. 7877, a special law otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. The prescriptive period for violations of R.A. No. 7877 is three (3) years. The Affidavit-Complaint for sexual harassment against him was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman on April 1, 2014. The Information against the respondent was, subsequently, filed before the Sandiganbayan on March 21, 2017. It alleged respondent’s unlawful acts that were supposedly committed “from February 14, 2013 to March 20, 2014, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto.” Thus, the issue confronting this Court is whether the filing of the complaint against the respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman for the purpose of preliminary investigation halted the running of the prescriptive period.
The issue of when prescription of a special law starts to run and when it is tolled was settled in the case of Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, et al.,wherein the Court had the occasion to discuss the set-up of our judicial system during the passage of Act 3326 and the prevailing jurisprudence at that time which considered the filing of the complaint before the justice of peace for preliminary investigation as sufficient to toll period of prescription. Panaguiton also cited cases subsequently decided by this Court involving prescription of special laws where We categorically ruled that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused.
The doctrine in the Panaguiton case was subsequently affirmed in People v. Pangilinan. In this case, the affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the respondent was filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Quezon City on September 16, 1997. The complaint stems from respondent’s issuance of nine (9) checks in favor of private complainant which were dishonored upon presentment and refusal of the former to heed the latter’s notice of dishonor which was made sometime in the latter part of 1995. On February 3, 2000, a complaint for violation of BP Blg. 22 against the respondent was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, after the Secretary of Justice reversed the recommendation of the OCP of Quezon City approving the “Petition to Suspend Proceedings on the Ground of Prejudicial Question” filed by the respondent on the basis of the pendency of a civil case for accounting, recovery of commercial documents and specific performance which she earlier filed before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City. The issue of prescription reached this Court after the Court of Appeals (CA), citing Section 2 of Act 326, sustained respondent’s position that the complaint against her for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 had prescribed.
In reversing the CA’s decision, We emphatically ruled that “(t)here is no more distinction between cases under the RPC (Revised Penal Code) and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription” and reiterated that the period of prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint before the fiscal’s office for purposes of preliminary investigation against the accused.
In the case at bar, it was clear that the filing of the complaint against the respondent with the Office of the Ombudsman on April 1, 2014 effectively tolled the running of the period of prescription. Thus, the filing of the Information before the Sandiganbayan on March 21, 2017, for unlawful acts allegedly committed on February 14, 2013 to March 20, 2014, is well within the three (3)-year prescriptive period of R.A. No. 7877. The court a quo’s reliance on the case of Jadewell v. Judge Nelson Lidua, Sr.,is misplaced. Jadewell presents a different factual milieu as the issue involved therein was the prescriptive period for violation of a city ordinance, unlike here as well as in the Pangilinan and other above-mentioned related cases, where the issue refers to prescription of actions pertaining to violation of a special law. For sure, Jadewell did not abandon the doctrine in Pangilinan as the form er even acknowledged existing jurisprudence which holds that the filing of complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor tolls the running of the prescriptive period.”
XXXX
Citations omitted.
G. R. No. 234618, September 16, 2019, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MATEO A. LEE, JR., RESPONDENT.
SEE ALSO: