Case Digest (G.R. No. 179267)
Facts:
In Zaldivia v. Reyes, petitioner Luz M. Zaldivia was charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor’s permit in violation of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1988, of the Municipality of Rodriguez, Rizal. The alleged offense occurred on May 11, 1990. The police referral-complaint was submitted to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal on May 30, 1990, and the corresponding information was filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990. Zaldivia moved to quash the information on the ground that the action had prescribed under Act No. 3326, but the Municipal Trial Court denied her motion. The Regional Trial Court of Rizal, in turn, affirmed the lower court’s decision. She then sought certiorari relief from the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- What is the applicable prescriptive period for violations of municipal ordinances under Act No. 3326?
- Does the filing of a complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor interrupt the prescriptive period under t
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 179267)
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioner Luz M. Zaldivia charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor’s permit, in violation of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1988, Municipality of Rodriguez, Rizal.
- Offense allegedly committed on May 11, 1990.
- Procedural History
- Referral-complaint received by the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal on May 30, 1990.
- Information filed in the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990.
- Petitioner moved to quash the information for prescription; motion denied by MTC and affirmed by RTC.
- Petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Applicable Prescriptive Rule
- Whether violations of municipal ordinances are governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure or by Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
- Suspension/Interruption of Prescription
- Whether the filing of the complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor constitutes “proceedings instituted” that interrupt the two-month prescriptive period under Act No. 3326.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)