Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 93 views

    Crimpro - Digest (2) 8 - Panaguiton - V - Doj - Precription - 1P

    Uploaded by

    Jestherin Baliton
    1) Luis Panaguiton Jr. filed a complaint against Rodrigo Cawili and Ramon Tongson for violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing bounced checks totaling 1,979,459 pesos. 2) The prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Tongson, ruling that the case had prescribed under Act No. 3326 which provides a 4-year prescriptive period. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the prescriptive period was interrupted when Panaguiton filed his complaint on August 24, 1995, within the 4-year period, and his subsequent appeals did not constitute abandonment of the case.

    Copyright:

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

    Crimpro - Digest (2) 8 - Panaguiton - V - Doj - Precription - 1P

    Uploaded by

    Jestherin Baliton
    93 views1 page
    1) Luis Panaguiton Jr. filed a complaint against Rodrigo Cawili and Ramon Tongson for violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing bounced checks totaling 1,979,459 pesos. 2) The prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Tongson, ruling that the case had prescribed under Act No. 3326 which provides a 4-year prescriptive period. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the prescriptive period was interrupted when Panaguiton filed his complaint on August 24, 1995, within the 4-year period, and his subsequent appeals did not constitute abandonment of the case.

    Original Title

    CRIMPRO_DIGEST (2) 8_PANAGUITON_V_DOJ_PRECRIPTION_1P

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Luis Panaguiton Jr. filed a complaint against Rodrigo Cawili and Ramon Tongson for violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing bounced checks totaling 1,979,459 pesos. 2) The prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Tongson, ruling that the case had prescribed under Act No. 3326 which provides a 4-year prescriptive period. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the prescriptive period was interrupted when Panaguiton filed his complaint on August 24, 1995, within the 4-year period, and his subsequent appeals did not constitute abandonment of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    93 views1 page

    Crimpro - Digest (2) 8 - Panaguiton - V - Doj - Precription - 1P

    Uploaded by

    Jestherin Baliton
    1) Luis Panaguiton Jr. filed a complaint against Rodrigo Cawili and Ramon Tongson for violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing bounced checks totaling 1,979,459 pesos. 2) The prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Tongson, ruling that the case had prescribed under Act No. 3326 which provides a 4-year prescriptive period. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the prescriptive period was interrupted when Panaguiton filed his complaint on August 24, 1995, within the 4-year period, and his subsequent appeals did not constitute abandonment of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SLC-LAW

    BATCH 2 DIGEST 8: PANAGUITON vs DOJ


    TOPIC: PRESCRIPTION
    G.R. No. 167571             November 25, 2008
    PETITIONER: LUIS PANAGUITON, JR., 
    RESPONDENTS: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RAMON C. TONGSON and RODRIGO G. CAWILI FACTS:
    Rodrigo Cawili (Cawili) borrowed various sums of money amounting to P1,979,459.00 from petitioner. Cawili and
    his business associate, Tongson, jointly issued in favor of petitioner three checks which bear the signature of both in
    payment of the said loans. The checks were dishonored, either for insufficiency of funds or by the closure of the account.
    Petitioner made formal demands to pay the amounts of the checks upon Cawili, but to no avail
    Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint against Cawili and Tongson for violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P.
    Blg. 22).. Tongson denied that he had issued the bounced checks and pointed out that his signatures on the said checks
    had been falsified.
    Prosecutor Sampaga dismissed the complaint against Tongson holding that the case had already prescribed
    pursuant to Act No. 3326, as amended, which provides that violations penalized by B.P. Blg. 22 shall prescribe after four
    (4) years, four (4)-year period started on the date the checks were dishonored, or on 20 January 1993 and 18 March 1993
    filing of the complaint before the Quezon City Prosecutor on 24 August 1995 did not interrupt the running of the
    prescriptive period, as the law contemplates judicial, and not administrative proceedings, considering that more than four
    (4) years had already elapsed and no information had as yet been filed against Tongson, the alleged violation of B.P. Blg.
    22 imputed to him had already prescribed
    Petitioner appealed to the DOJ. But the DOJ, through Undersecretary Manuel A.J. Teehankee, dismissed the
    same, stating that the offense had already prescribed pursuant to Act No. 3326
    .
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the offense has already prescribed

    RULING:

    The offense has not yet prescribed. There is no question that Act No. 3326, appropriately entitled An Act to Establish
    Prescription for Violations of Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin, is the
    law applicable to offenses under special laws which do not provide their own prescriptive periods. The pertinent provisions
    read:

    Sec. 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.

    When Act No. 3326 was passed on 4 December 1926, preliminary investigation of criminal offenses was conducted by
    justices of the peace, thus, the phraseology in the law, "institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and
    punishment,"39 and the prevailing rule at the time was that once a complaint is filed with the justice of the peace for
    preliminary investigation, the prescription of the offense is halted.

    Prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused. The
    first step taken in the investigation or examination of offenses partakes the nature of a judicial proceeding which suspends
    the prescription of the offense. The prescriptive period should be interrupted, to rule otherwise would deprive the injured
    party the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under his control. As in this case, petitioner filed his
    complaint-affidavit on 24 August 1995, well within the four (4)-year prescriptive period. He likewise timely filed his appeals
    and his motions for reconsideration on the dismissal of the charges against Tongson. Clearly, the delay was beyond
    petitioner's control. After all, he had already initiated the active prosecution of the case as early as 24 August 1995, only to
    suffer setbacks because of the DOJ's flip-flopping resolutions and its misapplication of Act No. 3326.

    Petitioner 's filing of his complaint-affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor on 24 August 1995 signified the
    commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused and thus effectively interrupted the prescriptive
    period for the offenses they had been charged under B.P. Blg. 22.

    You might also like