The rule is that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office for investigation already interrupts the running of the prescriptive period for an offense. This is based on Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code as read together with Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Section 1 of Rule 110 provides that a criminal action may be instituted by the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor. Said section also provides that “the institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription unless otherwise provided in special laws.” The foregoing rule has been extended to offenses punishable by special laws pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Panaguiton v. Department of Justice, 571 SCRA 549 (2008).
The holdout to the above rule were criminal actions governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure. In such cases, the prevailing doctrine was that the running of the prescriptive period would be interrupted only upon the filing of the complaint or information in court as held in Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277, 282-284 (1992). The Zaldivia doctrine was anchored on Section 9 of the 1983 Rule on Summary Procedure on commencement of criminal cases. This section states that “the prosecution of criminal cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall be either by complaint or information filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation.”
The Zaldivia doctrine was applied to a prosecution for a violation of B.P. Blg. 22, which, although involving a special law, was covered by the 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure (Republic v. Desierto, G.R. No. 136506, 16 January 2023). Like Section 9 of the 1983 Rule on Summary Procedure, Section 11 of the 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure provides that criminal cases within the coverage of the rule are commenced by the filing of the complaint or information in court.
Section 1 (B. Criminal Cases) of the 2022 Rule on Summary Procedure, as incorporated in the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts, substantially adopts the wordings of Section 9 of the 1983 Rule on Summary Procedure and Section 11 of the 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure. Section 1 (B. Criminal Cases) reads as follows:
“SECTION 1. How commenced; filing and service. — The filing of criminal cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure shall either be by complaint or by information.
“The complaint or information shall be accompanied by the judicial affidavits of the complainant and of his or her witnesses, in such number of copies as there are accused, plus one (1) copy for the court.
“The complaint or information and other submissions of the parties may be filed with the court and served on the adverse party/ies, and judgments, resolutions, orders, and other court processes may be served to the parties, electronically with their consent, in accordance with the prevailing Rules and other Court issuances [emphases supplied].”
Like its previous iterations, the text of Section 1 (B. Criminal Cases) of the 2022 Rule on Summary Procedure clearly indicates that the complaint referred to therein which commences the criminal case is the one filed in court.
However, in the recent en banc case of People v. Consebido, G.R. No. 258563, 2 April 2025, the Supreme Court made the pronouncement that in criminal cases covered by the 2022 Rule on Summary Procedure, the running of the prescriptive period is already interrupted upon the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor for investigation.
The Supreme Court stated that for purposes of interrupting the prescriptive period, the complaint referred to in Section 1 (B. Criminal Cases) of the 2022 Rule on Summary Procedure refers to the one filed before the prosecutor for investigation.
The Supreme Court said that this reading is in line with Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. Jurisprudence holds that the complaint referred to in Article 91 includes one filed before the prosecutor for investigation (Francisco v. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 438 [1983]).
This reading is also in synch with DOJ Circular No. 15 (16 July 2024) and DOJ Circular No. 28 (13 November 2024) which may be viewed as doing away with the direct filing of a complaint in court. The reason is that these circulars provide for an investigation by the prosecutor in practically all criminal cases.
The Consebido pronouncement ushers in a uniform rule that the prescriptive period of offenses, whether they be penalized under the Revised Penal Code or a special law, or governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure, is already interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor or proper investigating officer. In this regard, an amendment of the relevant provisions of the 2022 Rule on Summary Procedure appears to be necessary to better reflect the new rule.
-oOo-
