Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 160 views

    Jadewell vs. Lidua

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    Jadewell Parking Systems alleges that respondents dismantled and removed a wheel clamp that was placed on a vehicle parked illegally. Respondents claim the vehicle was not illegally parked and removing the clamp was not theft. A case was filed in Municipal Trial Court for violation of a city parking ordinance. Respondents argued the case had prescribed or the criminal liability was extinguished. The court agreed, finding that under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the two month period to file the information was not tolled by the preliminary investigation, and had lapsed. The ruling upheld the dismissal of the case on the grounds of prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jadewell vs. Lidua

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    160 views2 pages
    Jadewell Parking Systems alleges that respondents dismantled and removed a wheel clamp that was placed on a vehicle parked illegally. Respondents claim the vehicle was not illegally parked and removing the clamp was not theft. A case was filed in Municipal Trial Court for violation of a city parking ordinance. Respondents argued the case had prescribed or the criminal liability was extinguished. The court agreed, finding that under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the two month period to file the information was not tolled by the preliminary investigation, and had lapsed. The ruling upheld the dismissal of the case on the grounds of prescription.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    3.-Jadewell-vs.-Lidua

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jadewell Parking Systems alleges that respondents dismantled and removed a wheel clamp that was placed on a vehicle parked illegally. Respondents claim the vehicle was not illegally parked and removing the clamp was not theft. A case was filed in Municipal Trial Court for violation of a city parking ordinance. Respondents argued the case had prescribed or the criminal liability was extinguished. The court agreed, finding that under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the two month period to file the information was not tolled by the preliminary investigation, and had lapsed. The ruling upheld the dismissal of the case on the grounds of prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    160 views2 pages

    Jadewell vs. Lidua

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    Jadewell Parking Systems alleges that respondents dismantled and removed a wheel clamp that was placed on a vehicle parked illegally. Respondents claim the vehicle was not illegally parked and removing the clamp was not theft. A case was filed in Municipal Trial Court for violation of a city parking ordinance. Respondents argued the case had prescribed or the criminal liability was extinguished. The court agreed, finding that under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the two month period to file the information was not tolled by the preliminary investigation, and had lapsed. The ruling upheld the dismissal of the case on the grounds of prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    3. Jadewell Parking Systems vs.

    Lidua
    Facts:
    Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation is a private parking operator duly authorized to operate and
    manage the parking spaces in Baguio City pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000. It is also authorized under
    Section 13 of the City Ordinance to render any motor vehicle immobile by placing its wheels in a clamp if the
    vehicle is illegally parked.
    Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation (Jadewell alleged in their affidavit-complaint that on May 17, 2003,
    the respondents Edwin Ang, Benedicto Balajadia and John Doe dismantled, took and carried away the clamp
    attached to the left front wheel of a Mitsubishi Adventure owned by Edwin Ang.
    In his Counter-affidavit, respondent Benedicto Balajadia denied that his car was parked illegally. He admitted
    that he removed the clamp restricting the wheel of his car since he alleged that the placing of a clamp on the
    wheel of the vehicle was an illegal act. He alleged further that he removed the clamp not to steal it but to
    remove the vehicle from its clamp so that he and his family could continue using the car.
    The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of San Fernando City, La Union found no probable cause to charge
    respondents in these two (2) cases for the felony of Robbery. However according to the Provincial
    Prosecutor, the acts of respondents in removing the wheel clamps on the wheels of the cars involved in
    these cases and their failure to pay the prescribed fees were in violation of Sec. 21 of Baguio City Ordinance
    No. 003-2000.
    A case was filed for the violation of said ordinance with the MTC of Baguio City. Respondents then filed a
    Motion to Quash. The Motion to Quash and/or Manifestation sought the quashal of the two Informations on
    the grounds of extinguishment of criminal action or liability due to prescription. Judge Lidua granted the said
    motion to quash on the ground of prescription.
    Petitioner contends that the prescription period of the offense in Act No. 3326, as amended by Act No. 3763,
    does not apply because respondents were charged with the violation of a city ordinance and not a municipal
    ordinance. In any case, assuming arguendo that the prescriptive period is indeed two months, filing a
    Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor tolled the prescription period of two months. This is
    because Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that, in Manila and in other chartered cities, the Complaint
    shall be filed with the Office of the Prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters.
    Issue: Whether or not 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
    Ruling:
    NO. As it is clearly provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure that among the offenses it covers are
    violations of municipal or city ordinances, it should follow that the charge against the petitioner, which is
    for violation of a municipal ordinance of Rodriguez, is governed by that rule and not Section 1 of Rule 110.
    As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure:
    For violation of a special law or ordinance, the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day of
    the commission of the violation, and if the same is not known at the time, from the discovery and the
    institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted
    only by the filing of the complaint or information in court and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are
    dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy.
    Moreover, there is no distinction between the filing of the Information contemplated in the Rules of Criminal
    Procedure and in the Rules of Summary Procedure. When the representatives of the petitioner filed the
    Complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor of Baguio, the prescription period was running. It continued to run
    until the filing of the Information. They had two months to file the Information and institute the judicial
    proceedings by filing the Information with the Municipal Trial Court. The conduct of the preliminary
    investigation, the original charge of Robbery, and the subsequent finding of the violation of the ordinance did
    not alter the period within which to file the Information. Respondents were correct in arguing that the
    petitioner only had two months from the discovery and commission of the offense before it prescribed within
    which to file the Information with the Municipal Trial Court

    You might also like