LUISPANAGUITON,JR.vs.DEPARTMENTOFJUSTICE,RAMONC.

TONGSONand
RODRIGOG.CAWILI
G.R.No.167571
November25,2008
TINGA,J.

Facts:
Rodrigo Cawili borrowed various sums of money amounting to P1,979,459.00 from
petitioner. Cawili and his business associate, Ramon C. Tongson jointly issued in favor of
petitionerthree(3)checksinpaymentofthesaidloans,bearingthesignaturesofbothCawiliand
Tongson.Uponpresentmentforpaymenton18March1993,thechecksweredishonored,either
forinsufficiencyoffundsorbytheclosureoftheaccount.Petitionermadeformaldemandsto
paytheamountsofthechecksuponCawilion23May1995anduponTongsonon26June1995,
buttonoavail.On24August1995,petitionerfiledacomplaintagainstCawiliandTongsonfor
violating B.P. Blg. 22 before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office. During the preliminary
investigation,onlyTongsonappearedandfiledhiscounteraffidavitclaimingthathehadbeen
unjustlyincludedaspartyrespondentinthecasesincepetitionerhadlentmoneytoCawiliinthe
latter'spersonalcapacity.On15March1999,AssistantCityProsecutorMa.LelibetS.Sampaga
dismissedthecomplaintagainstTongsonholdingthatthecasehadalreadyprescribedpursuantto
Act No. 3326, as amended, which provides that violations penalized by B.P. Blg. 22 shall
prescribeafterfour(4)years.Inthiscase,thefour(4)yearperiodstartedonthedatethechecks
weredishonored,oron20January1993and18March1993.Thefilingofthecomplaintbefore
theQuezonCityProsecutoron24August1995didnotinterrupttherunningoftheprescriptive
period,asthelawcontemplatesjudicial,andnotadministrativeproceedings.Thus,considering
thatfrom1993to1998,morethanfour(4)yearshadalreadyelapsedandnoinformationhadas
yetbeenfiledagainstTongson,theallegedviolationofB.P.Blg.22imputedtohimhadalready
prescribed.

Issue:
Whetherornotthefilingofthecomplaintbeforetheprosecutortolledtherunningof
prescriptiveperiod

Ruling:
Yes, the Petitioners filing of his complaintaffidavit before the Office of the City
Prosecutor on August 24, 1995 signified the commencement of the proceedings for the
prosecutionoftheaccusedandthuseffectivelyinterruptedtheprescriptiveperiodfortheoffenses
theyhadbeenchargedunderB.P.Blg.22.Aggrievedparties,especiallythosewhodonotsleep on
theirrightsandactivelypursuetheircauses,shouldnotbeallowedtosufferunnecessarilyfurther
simplybecauseofcircumstancesbeyondtheircontrol,liketheaccused'sdelayingtacticsorthe
delay and inefficiency of the investigating agencies. The term "proceedings" should now be
understoodeitherexecutiveorjudicialincharacter:executivewhenitinvolvestheinvestigation
phaseandjudicialwhenitreferstothetrialandjudgmentstage.Withthisclarification,anykind
ofinvestigativeproceedinginstitutedagainsttheguiltypersonwhichmayultimatelyleadtohis
prosecutionshouldbesufficienttotollprescription.