Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUZ M. ZALDIVIA v. ANDRES B. REYES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 169588 2013-10-07	JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. JUDGE NELSON F. LIDUA SR. LEONEN, J.
Respondents argued that Zaldivia v. Reyes[21] held that the proceedings mentioned in Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, refer to judicial proceedings. Thus, this Court, in Zaldivia, held that the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor was not a judicial proceeding. The prescriptive period commenced from the alleged date of the commission of the crime on May 7, 2003 and ended two months after on July 7, 2003. Since the Informations were filed with the Municipal Trial Court on October 2, 2003, the respondent judge did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Criminal Case Nos. 112934 and 112935.
	GR No. 152662 2012-06-13	PEOPLE v. MA. THERESA PANGILINAN PEREZ, J.
In the case of Zaldivia vs. Reyes[7] the Supreme Court held that the proceedings referred to in Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, are 'judicial proceedings', which means the filing of the complaint or information with the proper court. Otherwise stated, the running of the prescriptive period shall be stayed on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that, which is in consonance with Section 2 of Act 3326, as amended.
	GR No. 167571 2008-11-25	LUIS PANAGUITON v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TINGA, J.
Petitioner appealed to the DOJ. But the DOJ, through Undersecretary Manuel A.J. Teehankee, dismissed the same, stating that the offense had already prescribed pursuant to Act No. 3326.[16] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the DOJ resolution. On 3 April 2003,[17] the DOJ, this time through then Undersecretary Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, ruled in his favor and declared that the offense had not prescribed and that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office interrupted the running of the prescriptive period citing Ingco v. Sandiganbayan.[18] Thus, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City was directed to file three (3) separate informations against Tongson for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.[19] On 8 July 2003, the City Prosecutor's Office filed an information[20] charging petitioner with three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.[21]