JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEM CORP. VS.

LIDUA
GR NO. 169588 OCTOBER 7, 2013

FACTS:
 Jadewell Parking system Corporation, a private parking operator duly authorized to
operate and manage the parking spaces in Baguio City pursuant to a city ordinance and
also authorized under the same city ordinance to render any motor vehicle immobile by
placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked, filed two(2) affidavit-
complaint on May 17, 2003 against respondents Edwin Ang, Benedicto Balajadia and
John Doe, alleging therein that the latter dismantled, took and carried away the clamp
attached to the left wheel of a Mitsubishi Adventure owned by Edwin Ang. According to
the May 17, 2003 complaint, the car was illegally parked and left unattended at a
Loading and Unloading Zone. In the second(2) complaint-affidavit, complainants herein
stated that on May 7, 2003, respondents Benedicto Balajadia, Jeffrey Walan and two (2)
John Does forcibly removed the clamp on the wheel of a Nissan Cefiro belonging to
Jeffrey Walan which was considered illegally parked for failure to pay the prescribed
parking fee. Such car was rendered immobile by such clamp by Jadewell personnel.
That, after forcibly removing the clamp, respondents took and carried it away depriving
its owner, Jadewell.

 Respondent Benedicto balajadia, in behalf of his co-respondents, states in his counter-

affidavit denying that his car was parked illegally and admitted that he removed the
clamp restricting the wheel of his car.

 The Office of the City Prosecutor finds no probable cause for the felony of Robbery as
the element of intent to gain and force upon things are absent in the instant cases but
finds probable cause of the acts of respondents in removing the wheel clamps on the
wheels of the cars for violations of the provisions of such ordinance.

 The respondents filed a motion to quash with the MTC Branch 3, Baguio City where the
latter granted the motion on the grounds that, Under Section 9 of the Rule [sic] on
Summary Procedure, the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date
the case is filed in Court and not on any date before that.

ISSUE:
Whether the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23, 2003
tolled the prescription period of the commission of the offense charged against respondents Balajadia,
Ang, "John Does," and "Peter Does."

HELD:
The court ruled that if there be a conflict between the Rule on Summary Procedure and Section
1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the former should prevail as the special law. And if
there be a conflict between Act No. 3326 and Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the latter
must again yield because this Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, is not allowed to "diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights" under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution. Prescription in
criminal cases is a substantive right. Jurisprudence exists showing that when the Complaint is filed with
the Office of the Prosecutor who then files the Information in court, this already has the effect of tolling
the prescription period.
PEOPLE VS. ARROJADO, JESUS
G.R. NO. 207041 NOVEMBER 09, 2015

FACTS:
 An Information was filed on March 23, 2009 at the Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas
City, where respondent was charged for murder. The case was raffled to Regional Trial
Court of Roxas City Branch 16.

 Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the information on the ground that the
investigating prosecutor who filed the said information failed to indicate therein the
number and date of issue of her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
Certificate of compliance as required by Mar Matter No. 1922.

 The RTC of Roxas City dismissed the information, without prejudice. Respondent filed a
Motion for Reconsideration but the trial court denied it.

 Respondent filed a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus with the CA but the latter
denies the respondent's petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of the Information which lacks MCLE Compliance number and date
of issuance as mandated by B.M. No. 1922 is proper.

HELD:
The Court held in the positive stating that the prosecution has never shown any reasonable
attempt at compliance with the rule enunciated under B.M. No. 1922. That even in the motion for
reconsideration of the RTC Order dismissing the subject information was filed, the required number and
date of issue of the investigating prosecutor's MCLE Certificate of Compliance was still not included nor
indicated. The Court agrees with the CA that the dismissal of the Information, without prejudice, did not
leave the prosecution without any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. To avoid undue delay in
the disposition of the subject criminal case and to uphold the parties' respective rights to a speedy
disposition of their case, the prosecution, mindful of its duty not only to prosecute offenders but more
importantly to do justice, could have simply re-filed the Information containing the required number
and date of issue of the investigating prosecutor's MCLE Certificate of Compliance, instead of resorting
to the filing of various petitions in court to stubbornly insist on its position and question the trial court's
dismissal of the subject Information, thereby wasting its time and effort and the State's resources.

Thus, the Court issued an En Banc Resolution dated January 14, 2014 which amended B.M. No.
1922 by repealing the phrase "Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of
the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records" and replacing it with "Failure to disclose
the required information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action."
Thus, under the amendatory Resolution, the failure of a lawyer to indicate in his or her pleadings the
number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance will no longer result in the
dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleadings from the records. Nonetheless, such failure will
subject the lawyer to the prescribed fine and/or disciplinary action.