View full case

LUIS PANAGUITON v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FACTS:

In 1992, Rodrigo Cawili borrowed money from Luis Panaguiton, Jr. Cawili and his business associate, Ramon Tongson, jointly issued three checks to the petitioner as payment for the loans, but the checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds or account closure. The petitioner demanded payment but was unsuccessful. In 1995, the petitioner filed a complaint against Cawili and Tongson for violating B.P. Blg. 22. Only Tongson appeared during the preliminary investigation and denied his involvement. The City Prosecutor found probable cause against Cawili but dismissed the charges against Tongson. The petitioner appealed, and a reinvestigation against Tongson was ordered by the Chief State Prosecutor. However, the complaint against Tongson was later dismissed by the Assistant City Prosecutor on the ground of prescription. The DOJ initially ruled in favor of the petitioner but eventually reversed its decision. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed due to technicalities. The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the offense of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 has already prescribed.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition based on technical grounds of non-compliance with procedural requirements.

RULING:

  1. On the prescription of the offense

    • The Supreme Court ruled that the offense of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 had not yet prescribed. The filing of a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor effectively interrupts the prescriptive period for the offenses under B.P. Blg. 22.

  2. On the dismissal by the Court of Appeals

    • The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals committed a grievous mistake by dismissing the petition on technical grounds. It held that the petitioner had substantially complied with the verification requirement and that the need for attaching the proper documents had been sufficiently addressed.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Prescription of Offenses under Special Laws

    • Act No. 3326 applies to the prescription of offenses under special laws like B.P. Blg. 22. Offenses prescribe in four years unless otherwise specified.

  2. Interruption of Prescription

    • The prescription is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation, not necessarily the filing of an information in court. This aligns with decisions in cases like Ingco v. Sandiganbayan.

  3. Judicial vs. Executive Proceedings

    • The term "proceedings" in the context of the prescription of offenses includes both judicial and executive actions. Hence, investigative proceedings by the prosecutor’s office also toll the prescriptive period.

  4. Technical Compliance in Pleadings

    • Procedural requirements such as verification are generally not jurisdictional and can be waived to serve the ends of justice, especially when a litigant has substantially complied.

  5. Right to Speedy Disposition

    • Delays attributable to external circumstances like inefficiency of investigating agencies should not prejudice the complainant’s right to seek remedy for a grievance.