Jadewell Parking Systems v. Lidua

Jadewell Parking Systems v. Lidua, G.R. No.
169588, 7 October 2013, 706 SCRA 724 On October 2, 2003, two criminal Informations were filed with
the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City dated July 25, 2003.
FACTS:
Respondent Benedicto Balajadia and the other accused through
Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation is a private their counsel Paterno Aquino filed on January 20, 2004 a
parking operator duly authorized to operate and manage the Motion to Quash and/or Manifestation[8] on February 2, 2004.
parking spaces in Baguio City pursuant to City Ordinance 003-
2000. It is also authorized under Section 13 of the City In an Order[10] dated February 10, 2004, respondent Judge
Ordinance to render any motor vehicle immobile by placing its Nelson F. Lidua, Sr., Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial
wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked. Court of Baguio City, Branch 3, granted the accused's Motion
to Quash and dismissed the cases. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation (Jadewell), thru its Reconsideration on February 27, 2004 responding to the
General Manager Norma Tan and Jadewell personnel Januario February 10, 2004 Order.
S. Ulpindo and Renato B. Dulay alleged in their affidavit-
complaint that on May 17, 2003, the respondents Edwin Ang, Respondents argued that in Zaldivia v. Reyes held that the
Benedicto Balajadia and John Doe dismantled, took and carried proceedings mentioned in Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as
away the clamp attached to the left front wheel of a Mitsubishi amended, refer to judicial proceedings. Thus, this Court, in
Adventure with Plate No. WRK 624 owned by Edwin Ang. Zaldivia, held that the filing of the Complaint with the Office
Accordingly, the car was then illegally parked and unattended of the Provincial Prosecutor was not a judicial proceeding. The
at a Loading and Unloading Zone. The value of the clamp prescriptive period commenced from the alleged date of the
belonging to Jadewell which was allegedly forcibly removed commission of the crime on May 7, 2003 and ended two
with a piece of metal is P26,250.00. The fines of P500.00 for months after on July 7, 2003. Since the Informations were filed
illegal parking and the declamping fee of P500.00 were also with the Municipal Trial Court on October 2, 2003, the
not paid by the respondents herein. respondent judge did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
cases.
Jadewell filed two cases against respondents for Robbery it was
filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City on The RTC of Baguio City, Branch 7 favored the respondents. In
May 23, 2003. A preliminary investigation took place on May a Decision dated April 20, 2005, the RTC of Baguio City
28, 2003. Respondent Benedicto Balajadia likewise filed a case Branch 7, through Judge Clarence F. Villanueva, dismissed the
charging Jadewell president, Rogelio Tan, and four (4) of Petition for Certiorari.
Jadewell's employees with Usurpation of Authority/Grave
Coercion. Petitioners then filed a May 17, 2005 Motion for
Reconsideration which was denied by the Regional Trial Court question that it is two months for the offense charged under
in an August 15, 2005 Order. City Ordinance 003-2000.
The offense was committed on May 7, 2003 and was

ISSUE: discovered by the attendants of the petitioner on the same day.
These actions effectively commenced the running of the
Whether the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City prescription period.
Prosecutor on May 23, 2003 tolled the prescription period of
the commission of the offense charged against respondents As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only
Balajadia, Ang, "John Does," and "Peter Does." 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.
HELD: Reyes. In Zaldivia v. Reyes, the violation of a municipal
ordinance in Rodriguez, Rizal also featured similar facts and
The resolution of this case requires an examination of both the issues with the present case. In that case, the offense was
substantive law and the procedural rules governing the committed on May 11, 1990. The Complaint was received on
prosecution of the offense. With regard to the prescription May 30, 1990, and the Information was filed with the
period, Act No. 3326, as amended, is the only statute that Metropolitan Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990.
provides for any prescriptive period for the violation of special
laws and municipal ordinances. No other special law provides Under Section 9 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, "the
any other prescriptive period, and the law does not provide any complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without
other distinction. Petitioner may not argue that Act No. 3326 as need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary
amended does not apply. investigation." Both parties agree that this provision does not
prevent the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary
In Romualdez v. Hon. Marcelo, this Court defined the investigation if he wants to. However, the case shall be deemed
parameters of prescription: In resolving the issue of commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the
prescription of the offense charged, the following should be prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary investigation.
considered: (1) the period of prescription for the offense This means that the running of the prescriptive period shall be
charged; (2) the time the period of prescription starts to run; halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on
and (3) the time the prescriptive period was interrupted. any date before that.
Jurisprudence exists showing that when the Complaint is filed

With regard to the period of prescription, it is now without with the Office of the Prosecutor who then files the
Information in court, this already has the effect of tolling the
prescription period.
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. According to the Department of Justice National
Prosecutors Service Manual for Prosecutors, an Information is
defined under Part I, Section 5 as: 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 information need not be placed under oath by the
prosecutor signing the same.

Jadewell Parking Systems v. Lidua

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jadewell Parking Systems v. Lidua

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jadewell Parking Systems v. Lidua

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jadewell Parking Systems v. Lidua, G.R. No.

The offense was committed on May 7, 2003 and was

Jurisprudence exists showing that when the Complaint is filed

Unfortunately, when the Office of the Prosecutor filed the

You might also like