Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUIS PANAGUITON v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 169823-24 2013-09-11	HERMINIO T. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
We note, too, that the criminal complaints were filed and their records transmitted by the PCGG to the Office of the Ombudsman on April 8, 1991 for the conduct the preliminary investigation.[33] In accordance with Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code[34] and the ruling in Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice,[35] the filing of the criminal complaints in the Office of the Ombudsman effectively interrupted the running of the period of prescription. According to Panaguiton:[36]
	GR No. 198444 2013-09-04	CITIBANK N.A. v. ESTER H. TANCO-GABALDON REYES, J.
Given the absence of a prescriptive period for the enforcement of the criminal liability in violations of the SRC, Act No. 3326 now comes into play. Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice[27] expressly ruled that Act No. 3326 is the law applicable to offenses under special laws which do not provide their own prescriptive periods.[28]
	GR No. 152662 2012-06-13	PEOPLE v. MA. THERESA PANGILINAN PEREZ, J.
In fact, in the case of Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice,[24] which is in all fours with the instant case, this Court categorically ruled that commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused before the Office of the City Prosecutor effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses they had been charged under BP Blg. 22. Aggrieved parties, especially those who do not sleep on their rights and actively pursue their causes, should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily further simply because of circumstances beyond their control, like the accused's delaying tactics or the delay and inefficiency of the investigating agencies.