Let us say that in January 2015, B issued in Manila a ₱1 million check to C in payment of a loan. The check was dishonored upon presentation to the drawee bank because of insufficient funds. C gave a written notice of dishonor to B in February 2015 and demanded payment, but the latter still failed to do so. In 2018, C filed a complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) with the city prosecutor of Manila. The information for violation of B.P. 22 was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in 2020. Considering that the prescriptive period for the violation of B.P. 22 is four years, may the criminal case be dismissed on the ground of prescription?
The answer is yes. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the running of the prescriptive period in criminal cases covered by the rule is interrupted only when the complaint or information is filed in court.1 This is an exception to the general rule in Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor or other proper officer interrupts the running of the prescriptive period. Effective 15 April 2003, B.P. 22 cases have been brought under the coverage of the Rule on Summary Procedure.2 The rule in Section 11 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure was reiterated in the 2022 Rule on Summary Procedure.3 Here, the information was filed in court only in 2020, which is more than four years from the commission of the offense in 2015.
In Panaguiton v. Department of Justice,4 it was held that the filing of the complaint for violation of B.P. 22 with the prosecutor’s office already tolled the running of the prescriptive period. The Supreme Court in the recent case of Republic v. Desierto5 clarified that Panaguiton should be limited to violations of B.P. 22 which were committed before 15 April 2003. The Court noted that in Panaguiton, the violation of B.P. 22 occurred in 1993 or before B.P. 22 cases were governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
The Court stated that as to other special laws not covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, such as a violation of R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft Law, the rule is that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor or other proper officer pursuant to Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the filing of a complaint for preliminary investigation against respondents with the Office of the Ombudsman for the violation of R.A. No. 3019 effectively tolled the running of the prescriptive period.
-oOo-
- See Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277, 282-284 (1992). See also my 11 March 2021 blog, https://legisperit.com/2021/03/11/a-re-check-revisiting-the-law-on-prescriptive-period-for-a-bp-22-prosecution/ ↩︎
- A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC, effective 15 April 2003. ↩︎
- Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts, Rule III(B), Sections 1 and 2. Section 11 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in turn reiterated Section 9 of the 1983 Rule on Summary Procedure. ↩︎
- 571 SCRA 549 (2008). ↩︎
- G.R. No. 136506, 16 January 2023, Hernando, J. ↩︎
