JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. JUDGE NELSON F. LIDUA SR., GR No.

169588, 2013-10-
07

Facts:

Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation is a private parking operator duly authorized to operate
and manage the parking spaces in Baguio City pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000. It is also authorized
under Section 13 of the City Ordinance to render any motor vehicle... immobile by placing its wheels in a
clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked.

Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation (Jadewell), thru [sic] its General Manager 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. 2003-1996 Edwin Ang,... Benedicto Balajadia and John Doe
dismantled, took and carried away the clamp attached to the left front wheel of a Mitsubishi Adventure
with Plate No. WRK 624 owned by Edwin Ang. Accordingly, the car was then illegally parked and [left]
unattended at a Loading and Unloading

Zone.

Jadewell thru [sic] its General Manager Norina C. Tan, Renato B. Dulay and Ringo Sacliwan alleged in
their affidavit-complaint that on 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 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.

Jadewell filed two cases against respondents: Robbery under I.S. Nos. 2003-1996 and 2003-1997.

Petitioner filed an Affidavit-Complaint against respondents Benedicto Balajadia,... Jeffrey Walan, and
three (3) John Does, one of 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.

A preliminary investigation took place on May

28, 2003.

Respondent Benedicto Balajadia likewise filed a case charging Jadewell president... with Usurpation of
Authority/Grave Coercion in I.S. No. 2003-1935.

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 alleged that the placing... of a clamp on the wheel of
the vehicle was an illegal act. He alleged further that he removed the clamp not to steal it but to remove
the vehicle from its clamp so that he and his family could continue using the car.
On October 2, 2003, two criminal Informations were filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City
dated July 25, 2003, stating:

Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3, granted the accused's Motion to
Quash and dismissed the cases.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 27, 2004 responding to the February 10, 2004
Order[11] to argue among other points that:

6.b. For another, the offenses charged have not yet prescribed. Under the law, the period of
prescription of offenses shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. While it may
be true that the Informations in these cases have been... filed only on October 2, 2003, the private
complainant has, however, filed its criminal complaint on May 23, 2003, well within the prescribed
period

For the guidance of the parties, the Court will make an extended resolution on one of the ground [sic]
for the motion to quash, which is that the criminal action has been extinguished on grounds of
prescription.

These offenses are covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure being alleged violations of City
Ordinances.

Under Section 9 of the Rule [sic] on Summary Procedure, the running of the prescriptive period shall be
halted on the date the case is filed in Court and not on any date before that (Zaldivia vs. Reyes, Jr. G.R.
No. 102342, July 3, 1992, En Banc).

In case of conflict, the Rule on Summary Procedure as the special law prevails over Sec. 1 of Rule 110 of
the Rules on Criminal Procedure and also Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure must yield to Act
No. 3326 or "AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR

VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE WHEN
PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN"

Petitioner contended further that:

[the] filing of the criminal complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City, not the filing of
the criminal information before this Honorable Court, is the reckoning point in determining whether or
not the criminal action in these cases had... prescribed.

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, the offenses charged have not
prescribed.

In a Decision dated April 20, 2005, the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City Branch 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 commenced by the... filing of an Information, then the
two-month prescription period may only be interrupted by the filing of Informations (for violation of City
Ordinance 003-2000) against the respondents in court. The Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 7,
ruled in favor of the... respondents and upheld the respondent judge's Order dated February 10, 2004
and the Resolution dated April 16, 2004.

Petitioners then filed a May 17, 2005 Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the Regional Trial
Court in an August 15, 2005 Order.

Issues:

The Motion to Quash and/or Manifestation sought the quashal of the two Informations on the following
grounds: extinguishment of criminal action or liability due to prescription; failure of the Information to
state facts... that charged an offense; and the imposition of charges on respondents with more than one
offense.

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 commission of the offense charged
against respondents Balajadia, Ang, "John Does," and "Peter Does."

Ruling:

The Petition is denied.

The resolution of this case requires an examination of both the substantive law and the procedural rules
governing the prosecution of the offense. With regard to the prescription period, Act No. 3326, as
amended, is the only statute that provides for 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 provide any other distinction. Petitioner may not argue that Act No. 3326 as amended does not
apply.

In Romualdez v. Hon. Marcelo,[27] this Court defined the parameters of prescription:

[I]n 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 period of prescription starts to run;
and (3) the time the prescriptive period was... interrupted.[28] (Citation omitted)

Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. 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.

As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an 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. Reyes.
Under Section 9 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, "the complaint or information shall be filed
directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation." Both
parties agree that this provision does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting... a preliminary
investigation if he wants to. However, the case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in
court, whether or not the 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 in court and
not on any date before that.

Unfortunately, when the Office of the Prosecutor filed the Informations on October 5, 2003, the period
had already prescribed. Thus, respondent Judge Nestor Lidua, Sr. did not err when he ordered the
dismissal of the case against respondents.