Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises › Criminal Procedure › Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
1. Institution of Criminal Action; Effect on Prescriptive Period
Effect of Institution of Criminal Action on Prescriptive Period
General Rule: The institution of the criminal action interrupts the running of the period of prescription of the offense charged.
Exception: If otherwise provided in special laws.
NOTE: There is no more distinction between cases punished under the RPC and those covered by SPLs. Irrespective of whether the offense charged is punishable by the Revised Penal Code or by a special law, it is the filing of the complaint or information in the office of the public prosecutor for purposes of the preliminary investigation that interrupts the period of prescription (Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24, 2013).
HOWEVER, as provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance (Jadewell Parking v. Lidua, G.R. No. 169588 October 7, 2013).
Prescription of Crimes punished under the RPC (Art. 90)
| CRIME | PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD |
| Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal | 20 years |
| Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties | 15 years |
| Crimes punishable by a correctional penalty | 10 years except arresto mayor, 5 years |
| Crime of libel or other similar crimes | 1 year |
| Crime of oral defamation and slander by deed | 6 months |
| Light offenses | 2 months |
Act No. 3326
It governs the prescriptive periods of violations of special laws, or offenses other than those penalized under the RPC.
Prescriptive Period for Violation of Special Penal Laws
| CRIME | PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD |
| Offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both | 1 year |
| Offenses punished by imprisonment for more than month but less than 2 years | 4 years |
| Offenses punished by imprisonment for 2 years or more, but less than 6 years | 8 years |
| Offenses punished by imprisonment for 6 years or more | 12 yearsExcept for treason, 20 years |
| Violations of municipal ordinances | 2 months |
The only proceeding that could interrupt the running of prescription is that which is filed or initiated by the offended party before the appropriate body or office. If the proceedings are null and void, In contemplation of the law, no proceedings exist that could have merited the suspension of the prescriptive periods. (Romualdez v. Marcelo, G.R. Nos. 165510-33, 2006)
In cases involving special penal laws, the commencement of proceedings for the prosecution of the accused serves to interrupt the prescriptive period, even if the case is not filed yet with the appropriate court (J. Caguioa, Perez v. Sandiganbayan), G.R. No. 245862, 2020).
Examples of laws that have their own prescriptive periods:
- Election offenses – shall prescribe after five years after the date of their commission. If the discovery of the offense be made in an election contest proceedings, the period of prescription shall commence on the date on which the judgment of such proceedings becomes final and executory. (BP Blg. 881)
- Genocide law – crimes defined and penalized under the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, their prosecution, and the execution of sentences imposed on their account, shall not be subject to any prescription. (R.A. 9851)
Prescription
The following are the prescriptive periods of the criminal liability or penalties:
- Death and reclusion perpetua - 20 years
- Other afflictive penalties - 15 years
- ther correctional penalties - 10 years; however, if penalty is arresto mayor - 5 years
- Light penalties - 1 year
Authorities
- BP Blg. 881
- Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24
- Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation v. Judge Nelson F. Lidua SR, G.R. No. 169588, 7 October 2013
- Pacuribot v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 245862, 6 July 2022
- R.A. 9851
- Revised Penal Code
- Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
- Romualdez v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 165510-33
- special laws