Below is a comprehensive discussion on the effect of the institution of a criminal action on the prescriptive period under Philippine law, with particular focus on Rule 110 of the Rules of Court and relevant statutory provisions/jurisprudence. I have endeavored to be as meticulous as possible, incorporating critical points of law and Supreme Court rulings on the matter.

1. General Framework on Prescription of Offenses

1.1. Definition and Purpose of Prescription

Prescription of crimes (or offenses) refers to the lapsing of the State’s right to prosecute an offender after a certain period. Once the prescriptive period elapses, the criminal liability for the offense is extinguished, and no prosecution can be pursued.
Prescription is anchored on the policy of encouraging prompt prosecution and preventing the prosecution of stale claims. The notion is that the passage of a significant amount of time tends to compromise evidence and the availability of witnesses, thereby making it difficult to achieve a fair trial.

1.2. Source Provisions in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and Special Laws

Revised Penal Code (RPC)
- Articles 90 to 94 of the RPC govern the periods of prescription and the manner of computing them for felonies.
- Article 90 sets out the prescriptive periods based on the penalty of the offense (e.g., 20 years for reclusion perpetua, 15 years for reclusion temporal, etc.).
- Article 91 provides that the period of prescription commences “from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents,” and that it is “interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information” in the proper court.
Special Laws
- Unless a specific special law provides its own prescriptive period and manner of interruption, the general rule is that the prescriptive period is governed by Act No. 3326 (An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances).
- Under Act No. 3326, the prescriptive period starts running from the day of the commission of the violation of the law and is “interrupted by the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.”
Importance of the Proper Court or Body
- Whether under the RPC or Act No. 3326, a key question is where the complaint must be filed to validly interrupt the running of prescription. Generally, it must be filed with a body or court that has the authority to take cognizance of the offense (i.e., a court or quasi-judicial body with appropriate jurisdiction).

2. Institution of the Criminal Action Under Rule 110 of the Rules of Court

2.1. What Constitutes Institution of a Criminal Action

Rule 110, Section 1 of the Rules of Court (2019 Amendments) states that a criminal action is instituted by filing a complaint or information in court for the purpose of prosecuting the offense.
The rules distinguish:
1. Offenses that require a preliminary investigation (generally offenses punishable by at least four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day without regard to fine). Here, the complaint is first filed with the appropriate prosecutor’s office (or in certain cases with the Office of the Ombudsman, or other investigative bodies) for preliminary investigation. The criminal action is only deemed instituted when the Information is filed in court after a finding of probable cause.
2. Offenses that do not require a preliminary investigation (generally punishable by lower penalties). In such cases, the complaint may be filed directly in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) or Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), which already exercises jurisdiction to try and decide the case.

2.2. Effect on the Prescriptive Period

General Rule: The running of the prescriptive period for an offense is interrupted by the valid institution of the criminal action, which is typically recognized as the filing of the complaint or information in the proper court.
- For crimes under the Revised Penal Code: Article 91 unequivocally states that prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information “in the proper court.”
- For offenses under special laws: Often, prescription is likewise interrupted upon institution of judicial proceedings. Under Act No. 3326, the institution of judicial proceedings for the investigation and punishment of the offense suspends the running of the prescriptive period.
Key Point: The complaint or information must be filed with a body having the authority to conduct proceedings leading to a final conviction. If it is filed with an office not clothed with judicial authority (e.g., a prosecutor’s office acting purely in an investigative capacity without court powers), the general principle is that it does not yet interrupt prescription except in certain cases where the special law or jurisprudence explicitly provides that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the filing for preliminary investigation (see discussion of relevant jurisprudence below).

3. Jurisprudential Clarifications

Over time, Supreme Court decisions have clarified nuances regarding where and when prescription is deemed interrupted:

People v. Olarte (1965)
- Held that the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court for the purpose of preliminary examination or investigation interrupts the prescriptive period, even if that court did not have jurisdiction to try the case on the merits.
- The rationale was that the judge at that time could lawfully conduct proceedings leading up to the determination of probable cause.
People v. Cuaresma (1983) and Subsequent Rulings
- Subsequent jurisprudence continued to emphasize that the filing of the complaint or information before a court with the power to act on it in some meaningful capacity interrupts prescription.
- When a court is involved in the preliminary examination or preliminary investigation process (as was previously the case before the 1985 amendments), that filing was enough to halt the period of prescription.
U.S. v. Ocampo (1908) and People v. Aquino (1968)
- Reinforced the idea that an entity must have the power to issue an order of dismissal or discharge for the filing to be considered an “institution” that interrupts prescription.
Effect of the 1985 and Subsequent Amendments to the Rules on Criminal Procedure
- After the 1985 amendments to the Rules of Court, which generally vested the preliminary investigation function in prosecutors (and significantly limited the instances of a judge conducting preliminary examination), the Supreme Court has been consistent that the crucial point for interrupting prescription is the filing of the complaint or information with the competent court.
- However, a line of cases acknowledges that for violations of special laws governed by Act No. 3326, the phrase “institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment” may, in particular circumstances, include the filing of a complaint before the fiscal’s office if that complaint automatically leads to judicial proceedings (e.g., when probable cause is later found and the information is filed). Still, the safer view—and the more standard approach—remains that it is the actual filing in court that definitively tolls prescription.
Special Considerations for the Ombudsman (e.g., Graft Cases)
- In graft and corruption cases (e.g., R.A. 3019), the rule is that the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation does not necessarily interrupt prescription. Generally, the accepted rule is that it is the filing of the Information in the Sandiganbayan (or appropriate court) that stops the running of prescription.
- Some earlier rulings caused debate on whether a complaint before the Ombudsman was sufficient, but the consistently affirmed position is that the prescriptive period is safest considered interrupted upon filing in the proper court.

4. Practical Applications

Crimes Punishable by Lower Penalties (No Preliminary Investigation Required)
- Where the MTC/MeTC has direct jurisdiction, the prescriptive period is interrupted by the filing of a complaint directly in the MTC/MeTC (since that filing already initiates the court proceedings).
Crimes or Offenses Requiring Preliminary Investigation
- Even though the complaint is first lodged with the prosecutor’s office (or the Office of the Ombudsman, etc.), the prescriptive period is not considered tolled at that stage for crimes under the RPC unless the law or case law specifically provides otherwise. The generally accepted rule is that the period is effectively interrupted only when the Information (after a finding of probable cause) is actually filed in the court which has jurisdiction to try and decide the case.
Special Laws with Explicit Provisions
- Some special penal statutes explicitly provide that prescription is interrupted by filing a complaint not only in court but also before the investigating authority. One must check the law’s text or implementing rules. If such provision is absent, the general principle (i.e., filing in the proper court) applies.
Dismissal and Refiling
- If the Information was validly filed but subsequently dismissed for reasons not amounting to jeopardy, the effect on the prescriptive period depends on whether the initial filing was sufficient to interrupt prescription. Usually, a valid Information that was dismissed still tolls prescription from the time of its filing; if refiled properly and timely, the prosecution is not barred as long as the new case is not filed beyond the original prescriptive period (minus the interruption already caused).
Practical Advice
- Prosecutors and private complainants must be cognizant of the exact date by which a criminal case must be filed in court, so as to avoid the extinguishment of criminal liability by prescription.
- From a defense standpoint, always check whether the case was timely filed and if any interruption was based on a valid or invalid complaint/information.

5. Summation of Key Points

Art. 91 of the RPC: Prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information in the proper court.
Act No. 3326: For offenses under special laws without their own prescriptive periods, the same principle generally applies: the filing in the appropriate court interrupts the prescriptive period.
**Rule 110 of the