G.R. No. 152662 - People vs. Pangili

On 16 September 1997, private complainant Virginia C. Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, alleging issuance of nine (9) dishonored checks totalling ₱9,658,592.00.
On 5 December 1997, respondent Pangilinan filed Civil Case No. 1429-V-97 for accounting, recovery of commercial documents, enforceability and effectivity of contract, and specific performance against Malolos before the RTC of Valenzuela City.
On 10 December 1997, respondent petitioned the City Prosecutor to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question, citing the pendency of her civil action.

On 2 March 1998, the Assistant City Prosecutor recommended suspension of the criminal proceedings; the City Prosecutor approved the recommendation.
Aggrieved, Malolos elevated the matter to the DOJ, and on 5 January 1999, the Secretary of Justice reversed the suspension and ordered filing of informations for two checks (City Trust Check No. 127219 for ₱4,129,400.00 and RCBC Check No. 423773 for ₱4,475,000.00), dismissing charges on the other seven checks.
On 3 February 2000, two counts for violation of BP Blg. 22 were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Quezon City (raffled to Branch 31 on 7 June 2000).

On 17 June 2000, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information before MeTC, alleging prescription; on 5 October 2000, MeTC, Branch 31 granted the motion.
On 26 October 2000, Malolos filed a notice of appeal; the cases were raffled to RTC, Branch 218, Quezon City.
On 27 July 2001, RTC reversed the MeTC order, ruling the criminal actions filed on 3 February 2000 had not prescribed, as the complaint began on 16 September 1997.

Respondent sought review under Rule 45; SC referred the petition to the CA.
On 12 March 2002, the CA reversed the RTC, holding the BP Blg. 22 offenses prescribed four years after “the latter part of 1995” when dishonor was notified, and that only the filing of information in court (not the prosecutor’s preliminary investigation) interrupts prescription.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that the 16 September 1997 complaint before the City Prosecutor interrupted prescription.
Respondent argued procedural lapses and maintained that under special laws, only judicial filing interrupts prescription.

Whether the four-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326, as amended, for violation of BP Blg. 22 was interrupted by the filing of the affidavit-complaint on 16 September 1997 with the Office of the City Prosecutor.
Whether the CA erred in distinguishing preliminary investigation before the prosecutor from “judicial proceedings” that interrupt prescription under Section 2 of Act No. 3326.