Summary Procedure

1. On May 20, 1992, the police charged accused before the Prosecutor’s Office with violation of a municipal
ordinance which carries a penalty of six months imprisonment. The offense was allegedly committed on 11 May
1990.
On October 2, 1992, the corresponding Information was filed with the MTC.
Accused moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed for the reason that
the information was filed beyond the two-month period from the date of the alleged offense.
For its part, the prosecution contended that the prescriptive period was suspended upon the filing the
complaint against accused with the Office of the Prosecutor.
Who is correct? Explain. (1993, #18)

Answer:
The accused is correct. The offense charged, violation of a municipal ordinance, is governed by
the Rule on Summary Procedure. Under the 1988 amendment of Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure, the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts the period of
prescription of the offense charged. However, this provision applies to “offenses not subject to the rule on
summary procedure in special cases”, according to the opening phrase in said Section 1 of Rule 110.
Consequently, when the corresponding information was filed with the MTC, the offense had already
prescribed.

2. a) Edison was charged with the crime of less serious physical injuries in the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila. Under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty prescribed for this offense is arresto mayor, Aside from the
recital of the facts constituting the offense, the information alleged that the offended party suffered actual damages
in the amount of P25,000. Instead of submitting his counter-affidavits as required by the court, Edison filed a
“motion to quash” contending that the court had no jurisdiction over the case since the amount claimed as damages
exceeds the jurisdictional limit of trial courts in civil cases. If you were the judge trying the case, what would you do
with the motion filed? How would you dispose of the question of jurisdiction raised in the said motion? Explain.

Answer:
I would deny the motion to quash inasmuch as such a motion is not allowed in Summary
Procedure. The criminal case where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged does not
exceed six months of imprisonment is governed by Summary Procedure.
On the question of jurisdiction, Summary Procedure applies irrespective of the civil liability
arising from the offense. Hence the fact that the civil liability exceeds P 20,000 does not deprive the MeTC
of jurisdiction.

b) An information for slight physical injuries was filed against Diego in the Municipal Trial Court of
Cainta, after which the judge directed him to appear and submit counter-affidavits and those of his witnesses on
September 12, 1989. Diego failed to appear on the said date. Thereafter, the judge rendered judgment convicting
Diego of the offense charged based on the affidavits submitted by the complainant. Diego contends that this
judgment is a nullity. Decide. (1989, #16)

Answer:
Diego’s contention is correct. Under Summary Procedure rules, the failure of Diego to appear and
submit counter-affidavits on the date specified may be a ground for the judge to issue a warrant for his
arrest upon a finding of probable cause. However, the judge may not render a judgment of conviction of
the offense charged based on the affidavits submitted by the complainant. He should set the case for
arraignment and trial if Diego pleads not guilty. Only after trial may the judge render a judgment of
conviction.

3. In what criminal cases is the Summary Procedure before the Metropolitan Courts, Municipal Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts applicable? (1988, #14)
Answer:
It is applicable in the following criminal cases:
a) violation of traffic laws, rules and regulations
b) violations of the rental law
c) violation of city or municipal ordinances
d) all other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged does not
exceed 6 months or imprisonment, or a fine of P 1,000, or both, irrespective of other
imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom.
Provided, however, than in offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed P 10,000