Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jadewell Parking Systems V Lidua G.R. No. 169588 October 7, 2013

    Uploaded by

    Jamiah Obillo Hulipas
    71 views1 page

    Original Title

    JADEWELL-PARKING-SYSTEMS-V-LIDUA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views1 page

    Jadewell Parking Systems V Lidua G.R. No. 169588 October 7, 2013

    Uploaded by

    Jamiah Obillo Hulipas

    Copyright:

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

    JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS V LIDUA

    G.R. No. 169588               October 7, 2013

    FACTS

    Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation is a private parking operator duly authorized to operate
    and manage the parking spaces in Baguio City and to render any motor vehicle immobile by placing its
    wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked. Respondents are two sets of individuals found by
    Jadewell on separate occasions to be parking illegally, prompting Jadewell to place metal clamps on a
    wheel of each car. Respondents, in both cases, dismantled the clamp and carried it away on the vehicle.
    Jadewell filed charges of robbery but was dismissed due to lack of probable cause. On May 23, 2003,
    Jadewell filed an affidavit-complaint charging respondents of violation of the city parking ordinance. On
    October 2, 2003, the prosecutor filed an information charging the respondents. Respondents filed with the
    MTC Baguio City a Motion to Quash the information on the ground that criminal action has already
    prescribed after two months from the discovery of the crime pursuant to Act No. 3763. The motion to
    quash was granted. Jadewell filed a petition for review before the RTC Baguio averring that Act No. 3763
    does not apply in this case and that under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prescription was
    interrupted when they filed a complaint on May 23, 2003, days after the prescription period commenced.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23, 2003 tolled the

    RULING

    No. In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following should be considered: (1)
    the period of prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time the period of prescription starts to run; and
    (3) the time the prescriptive period was interrupted.

    The offense was committed on May 7, 2003 and was discovered by the attendants of the petitioner on the
    same day. These actions effectively commenced the running of the prescription period.

    The procedural rules that govern this case are the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, which
    provides that only the filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is
    involved in an ordinance. The Rules on Summary Procedure prevail the over Rules of Criminal Procedure
    because the former is a special law.

    Under Section 9 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, "the complaint or information shall be filed directly
    in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation." However, the case
    shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the prosecution decides to
    conduct a preliminary investigation. The running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the
    case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that. This is in consonance with Act No. 3326.

    For violation of a special law or ordinance, the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day
    of the commission of the violation, and if the same is not known at the time, from the discovery and the
    institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be
    interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in court and shall begin to run again if the
    proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy.

    Unfortunately, when the Office of the Prosecutor filed the Informations on October 5, 2003, the period had
    already prescribed. Thus, respondent Judge Nestor Lidua, Sr. did not err when he ordered the dismissal
    of the case against respondents.

    You might also like