Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 228 views

    Jadewell Vs Lidua Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    This case involves a dispute over whether the filing of a criminal complaint with the city prosecutor's office or the filing of a criminal information in court stops the statute of limitations for a crime. Jadewell filed a complaint for robbery with the city prosecutor against respondents for dismantling vehicle wheel clamps. However, the criminal informations were not filed in court until after the two month statute of limitations had expired. The court held that, based on previous case law, only the filing of a criminal information in court stops the running of the statute of limitations for crimes related to violations of local ordinances. Therefore, the robbery case against the respondents was dismissed as time-barred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jadewell Vs Lidua Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    228 views3 pages
    This case involves a dispute over whether the filing of a criminal complaint with the city prosecutor's office or the filing of a criminal information in court stops the statute of limitations for a crime. Jadewell filed a complaint for robbery with the city prosecutor against respondents for dismantling vehicle wheel clamps. However, the criminal informations were not filed in court until after the two month statute of limitations had expired. The court held that, based on previous case law, only the filing of a criminal information in court stops the running of the statute of limitations for crimes related to violations of local ordinances. Therefore, the robbery case against the respondents was dismissed as time-barred.

    Original Description:

    d

    Original Title

    Jadewell vs Lidua Et Al

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over whether the filing of a criminal complaint with the city prosecutor's office or the filing of a criminal information in court stops the statute of limitations for a crime. Jadewell filed a complaint for robbery with the city prosecutor against respondents for dismantling vehicle wheel clamps. However, the criminal informations were not filed in court until after the two month statute of limitations had expired. The court held that, based on previous case law, only the filing of a criminal information in court stops the running of the statute of limitations for crimes related to violations of local ordinances. Therefore, the robbery case against the respondents was dismissed as time-barred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    228 views3 pages

    Jadewell Vs Lidua Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    This case involves a dispute over whether the filing of a criminal complaint with the city prosecutor's office or the filing of a criminal information in court stops the statute of limitations for a crime. Jadewell filed a complaint for robbery with the city prosecutor against respondents for dismantling vehicle wheel clamps. However, the criminal informations were not filed in court until after the two month statute of limitations had expired. The court held that, based on previous case law, only the filing of a criminal information in court stops the running of the statute of limitations for crimes related to violations of local ordinances. Therefore, the robbery case against the respondents was dismissed as time-barred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATIONvs. HON.

    JUDGE
    NELSON F. LIDUA, SR.,Presiding, BENEDICTO BALAJADIA, EDWIN
    ANG, JOHN DOES and PETER DOES
    G.R. No. 169588
    October 7, 2013.
    FACTS: Jadewell, pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000, was authorized to render
    any motorvehicle immobilized by placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is
    illegally parked.Balajadia and the other respondents dismantled, took and carried
    away the clampsattached to the wheel of the vehicles, which took place on May 7,
    2003. Jadewell filed acomplaint for robbery against the respondents with the Office
    of the City Prosecutor on May 23,2003. However, the Informations were filed with
    the MTC on October 2, 2003. Balajadia filed amotion to quash.

    JADEWELL claims that the filing of the criminal complaint with the Office of the
    City Prosecutor of Baguio City, not the filing of the criminal information before
    Court, is the reckoning point in determining whether or not the criminal action had
    prescribed.

    BALAJADIA posit that Zaldivia v. Reyes held that the proceedings mentioned in
    Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, refer to judicial proceedings. Thus, the
    SC, in Zaldivia, held that the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the
    Provincial Prosecutor was not a judicial proceeding. The prescriptive period
    commenced from the alleged date of the commission of the crime on May 7, 2003
    and ended two months after on July 7, 2003.
    ISSUE: Whether the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor
    on May 23, 2003 tolled the prescription period of the commission of the offense

    HELD: No.
    As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of
    Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an
    ordinance. The respondent judge was correct when he applied the rule
    in Zaldivia v. Reyes. In Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277 (1992), the violation of a
    municipal ordinance in Rodriguez, Rizal also featured similar facts and issues with
    the present case. In that case, the offense was committed on May 11, 1990. The
    Complaint was received on May 30, 1990, and the Information was filed with the
    Metropolitan Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990.

    When the representatives of the petitioner filed the Complaint before the Provincial
    Prosecutor of Baguio, the prescription period was running. It continued to run until
    the filing of the Information. They had two months to file the Information and
    institute the judicial proceedings by filing the Information with the Municipal Trial
    Court. The failure of the prosecutor to seasonably file the Information is unfortunate
    as it resulted in the dismissal of the case against the private respondents. It stands
    that the doctrine of Zaldivia is applicable to ordinances and their prescription
    period. It also upholds the necessity of filing the Information in court in order to toll
    the period. Zaldivia also has this to say concerning the effects of its ruling: The
    Court realizes that under the above interpretation, a crime may prescribe even if the
    complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutors office if, intentionally or not, he
    delays the institution of the necessary judicial proceedings until it is too late.
    However, that possibility should not justify a misreading of the applicable rules
    beyond their obvious intent as reasonably deduced from their plain language. The
    remedy is not a distortion of the meaning of the rules but a rewording thereof to
    prevent the problem here sought to be corrected.

    You might also like