A. How Computed and Interrupted
1. For an offense penalized under the Revised Penal Code. The period of prescription commences to run from the day on which the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted:
a. by filing of the complaint with the Office of the Provincial/City Prosecutor (Sec. 1 (b), par. 2, Rule 110, supra.); or with the Office of the Ombudsman (Llenes v. Dicdican, 260 SCRA 207 [1996] or
b. by the filling of the Complaint/Information with the court even if the court cannot try the case on its merit because of lack of jurisdiction (People v. Enrile, 160 SCRA 700).
2. For an offense covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (which is not violation of a municipal ordinance or special law such as reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries), the period of prescription is interrupted only by the filing of the Complaint or Information in the prosecutor’s office(People v. Cuaresma,172 SCRA 415 [1989). The prescription of an offense filed before the Prosecutor or Ombudsman shall commence to run again when proceedings terminate; while the prescription of an offense filed in court starts to run again when proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to the accused (Art. 91, Revised Penal Code).
3. For violation of a special law of 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 (Sec. 2, Act. No. 3326, as amended). Prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the country (Art. 91, par. 2, Act. No. 3326, as amended). In case where the imposable penalty is imprisonment and/or a fine, the greater penalty shall be the basis for the computation of prescription.
4. For cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Katarungan Pambarangay. The period of prescription is likewise interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the punong barangay, but shall not resume to run again upon receipt by the complainant of the certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary; Provided, however, That such interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint with the punong barangay. Prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the country.
B. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE
1. A petition for a change of venue of the preliminary investigation should be addressed to the Secretary of Justice who has control and supervision over the conduct of a preliminary investigation which is a function of the Executive Department and not the Judiciary (Larranaga v. C.A., 287 SCRA 581).
2. Where the crime for violation of PD 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974) was committed aboard a jeepney, the criminal action may be instituted in the court of any municipality or territory where the vehicle passed during the trip including the place of departure and arrival (People v. Panlilio, 255 SCRA 503).
3. Where the transport of cigarettes commenced out of Clark Airbase and continued when the goods pushed through Valenzuela, Bulacan until they were seized in Quezon City, the courts in any of these places had jurisdiction over the offenses (Co Kiat v. C.A., 187 SCRA 5 [1990]).
4. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of People v. Esperanza, G.R. Nos. 139217-24, June 27, 2003, the allegation that “Irma is Nelson’s niece” is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstances of relationship. If the offender is merely relation – not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian or common-law spouse of the mother of the victim – the specific relationship must be alleged in the Information, i.e., that he is a “relative by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third civil degree.”
5. In the preparation of the Information in case of qualified rape, the attendant circumstances provided for under Sec. 11 of RA 7659 must be stated with particularity. Not only the qualifying but and the aggravating circumstances must not only be proved but it must also be alleged; otherwise, it should not be considered. (Catiis v. C.A., GR No. 153979, February 09, 2006.).
6. The exact age of the victim at the time of the commission of the offense must be stated in the Information. (People v. Arillas, GR No. 130593, June 19, 2000.).
7. Where the Informations state that the offense wad committed with the aggravating circumstances of insult or in disregard of the respect due the offending party on account of the fact that the accused is the father of the complainant, said Informations properly pleaded the special circumstances of relationship of father and daughter that would enable a “person of sufficient understanding” to know what offense is intended to be charged (People v. Alarcon, 310 SCRA 729).
8. An aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the context of Article 2230 of the New Civil Code even if the Information or criminal Complaint had not alleged said circumstances as required by the Rule (People v. Victor, G.R. No. 127904, December 05, 2002).
9. The court gave fair warning to prosecutors that they must prepare well crafted Informations that alleged the circumstances qualifying and aggravating the crime charged; otherwise, the same will not be considered by the court in determining the proper penalty (People v. Rodolfo Oling Madraga, January 20,2003). The words “aggravating/qualifying”, “qualifying”, “qualified by”, “aggravating” or “aggravated by” need not be expressedly stated as long as the particular attendant circumstances are specified in the Information. (People v. Aquino, 386 SCRA 39 [20002] as reiterated in People v. Paulino, 386 SCRA 391 [2002] and People v. Garin, 432 SCRA 394 [2004]).
10. When conspiracy is charged as a mode in the commission of a crime, the allegation in the Information should allege, thus: a) by the use of the word “conpiracy” or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive, collude, etc. or b) the allegations of basic facts constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a person of common understanding would know what is intended, and with such precision would enable the accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment based on the same facts (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148965, February 26, 2002).
11. Allegations prevail over designation of the offense in the Information for condition of the accused who may therefore be convicted of a crime more serious in that named in the title or preliminary part if such crime is covered by the alleged in the body of the Information and its commission is established by the evidence (Buhat v. C.A., 265 SCRA 701 [1996]).
An Information for bigamy must state the time and place of the second wedding (People v. Bustamante, 105 Phil. 64). Time is irrelevant in rape (People v. Requiz, 318 SCRA 635).
12. Where murder or homicide results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is no longer qualified illegal possession, but murder or homicide, as the case may be. The use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered as a separate crime but shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating circumstance (People v. Lazaro, 317 SCRA 435).
13. An amendment after plea which changes the nature of the offense is prohibited (Ricers v. C.A., GR No. 16041, February 09, 2007). The factor that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of facts. The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the Information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated they being conclusions of law but by the actual recital of facts in the Complaint or Information (Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 [1999]; People vs. Gutierrez, 403 SCRA 178).
No comments:
Post a Comment