Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 263 views

    People v. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan

    Uploaded by

    Vanessa C. Roa
    The Supreme Court ruled that filing a complaint with the city prosecutor's office interrupts the prescription period for crimes under the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Virginia Malolos filed a complaint in 1997 for estafa and BP 22 violations against Theresa Pangilinan for issuing bad checks in 1995. Pangilinan argued the case prescribed under the 4-year period. However, the Court held that filing a complaint with the prosecutor is considered the start of a "judicial proceeding" and interrupts prescription, as there is no difference between the Revised Penal Code and special laws. As the complaint was filed within 4 years in 1997, the prescription period was validly interrupted.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan

    Uploaded by

    Vanessa C. Roa
    263 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that filing a complaint with the city prosecutor's office interrupts the prescription period for crimes under the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Virginia Malolos filed a complaint in 1997 for estafa and BP 22 violations against Theresa Pangilinan for issuing bad checks in 1995. Pangilinan argued the case prescribed under the 4-year period. However, the Court held that filing a complaint with the prosecutor is considered the start of a "judicial proceeding" and interrupts prescription, as there is no difference between the Revised Penal Code and special laws. As the complaint was filed within 4 years in 1997, the prescription period was validly interrupted.

    Original Description:

    Arrest w/out warrant; when lawful.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that filing a complaint with the city prosecutor's office interrupts the prescription period for crimes under the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Virginia Malolos filed a complaint in 1997 for estafa and BP 22 violations against Theresa Pangilinan for issuing bad checks in 1995. Pangilinan argued the case prescribed under the 4-year period. However, the Court held that filing a complaint with the prosecutor is considered the start of a "judicial proceeding" and interrupts prescription, as there is no difference between the Revised Penal Code and special laws. As the complaint was filed within 4 years in 1997, the prescription period was validly interrupted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    263 views1 page

    People v. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan

    Uploaded by

    Vanessa C. Roa
    The Supreme Court ruled that filing a complaint with the city prosecutor's office interrupts the prescription period for crimes under the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Virginia Malolos filed a complaint in 1997 for estafa and BP 22 violations against Theresa Pangilinan for issuing bad checks in 1995. Pangilinan argued the case prescribed under the 4-year period. However, the Court held that filing a complaint with the prosecutor is considered the start of a "judicial proceeding" and interrupts prescription, as there is no difference between the Revised Penal Code and special laws. As the complaint was filed within 4 years in 1997, the prescription period was validly interrupted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEOPLE V. MA.

    THERESA PANGILINAN
    G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012
    Perez, J:

    FACTS:

    On 16 September 1997, Virginia C. Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of
    Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22 against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan (respondent) with the Office of the
    City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The complaint alleges that respondent issued nine (9) checks
    with an aggregate amount of Nine Million Six Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-
    Two Pesos (P9,658,592.00) in favor of private complainant which were dishonored upon
    presentment for payment.
    Consequently the case was modified, and only on February 3, 2000 that two counts for violation
    of BP Blg. 22 were filed against respondent Ma.Theresa Pangilinan in the Metropolitan Trial Court
    of Quezon City. On 17 June 2000, respondent filed an “Omnibus Motion to Quash the
    Information and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest” before MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon
    City. She alleged that her criminal liability has been extinguished by reason of prescription.

    In defense of her claim, Pangilinan said that the prevailing law that governs the prescription of
    special penal law, B.P. 22, is Section 2 of Act No. 3326 (An Act To Establish Periods Of
    Prescription For Violations Penalized By Special Acts) where the right to file an action to a
    “proper court” and not to merely to prosecution office for B.P. 22, prescribes four (4) years from
    the commission of the crime. The imputed violation occurred sometime in 1995, and only on
    February 3, 2000 that a case was formally filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court, therefore the
    action already prescribes. RTC granted the motion.

    On the other hand, the complainant argued that the filing with the office of city prosecutor
    constitutes an interruption to the prescription.

    ISSUE:

    Is filing complaint to city prosecutor office considered a “judicial proceeding” that can interrupt
    prescription of crime under B.P. 22?

    HELD:

    YES. Following a catena of cases, the court held that, there is no more distinction between cases
    under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and those covered by special laws with respect to the
    interruption of the period of prescription; that the institution of proceedings for preliminary
    investigation in the office of prosecutor against accused interrupts the period of prescription.

    Following the factual finding the crime was committed sometime in 1995, the filing of complaint on
    September 1997, two (2) years from the commission of the crime validly interrupts the running of
    prescription. Therefore the action against the respondent Pangilinan did not prescribe.

    You might also like