Criminal Procedure Case Digest: Zaldiva v. Reyes (1992)

G.R. No. 102342 July 03, 1992

Lessons Applicable: Rule 110 does not cover Rule on Summary Procedure (special law), Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right (Criminal Procedure)
Laws Applicable: Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

FACTS:

May 11, 1990: Luz M. Zaldiva violated Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1988, of the Municipality of Rodriguez, in the Province of Rizal and was charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor's permit in
May 30, 1990: complaint of the police was received by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal
October 2, 1990: information was filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez
Zaldiva: moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed - MTC denied and RTC affirmed on appeal
Zadive filed a petition for review on certiorari and argues that the crime is covered under the Rule of Summary Procedure:

Section 1. Scope. -- This rule shall govern the procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases: x x x

B. Criminal Cases: xxx

3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances xxx

Section 9. How commenced. – The prosecution of criminal cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall be either by complaint or by information filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation: Provided, however, That in Metropolitan Manila and chartered cities, such cases shall be commenced only by information; Provided, further, That when the offense cannot be prosecuted de oficio, the corresponding complaint shall be signed and sworn to before the fiscal by the offended party.

Act No. 3326, as amended, entitled "An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run," reading as follows:

Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: x x x Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months.
Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.

The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.

The prosecution invokes Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure where the phrase phrase "in all cases" applies to all cases, without distinction, including those falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure which is according to the dictum in Francisco v. CA promulgated on May 30, 1983. (the promulgation of Rules on Summary Procedure is on Aug 1, 1983 while the revisionof Criminal Procedure was on Oct 1, 1988)
Applying the canon that words statute should be read in relation to and not isolation from the rest of the measure, to discover the true legislative intent, the phrase "in all cases" appearing in the last paragraph obviously refers to those offenses not governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure

Referenced to Section 32(2) of B.P. No. 129 vesting to the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts offenses not covered under Rules on Summary Procedure

Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to but the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court
Conflict between:

Rule on Summary Procedure (special law) > Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
Act No. 3326 > Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure