Topic: Sec 1 Rule 110:

Section 1. Institution of criminal actions. Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows: (a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation. (b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running period of prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws. (1a)

Brillante v CA Facts: Petitioner Brillante was charged with libel for writing and causing to be published an open letter dated Jan 10 to 12, 1988, addressed to then President Aquino, discussing the alleged participation of Atty. Binay and Dr. Prudente in an assassination plot against Augusto Syjuco. Binay filed with Makati fiscals office 4 complaints of libel against Brillante as the author of the letter, and other parties responsible for writing and publishing the news article. 5 informations for libel were filed against Brillante with RTC of Makati. Prudente also filed 4 complaints for libel on Jan 15, 1988 where the letter was published in Manila. On Jan 16, 1989, 4 Informations were filed against Brillante with the RTC of Manila. RTC of Manila found Brillante guilty of libel on 4 counts. Brillante appealed the decision, contending that when the Informations were filed by the prosecutor on Jan 16, 1989 at the RTC, the offense had already prescribed because more than one year had elapsed since the publication of the open letter. (In other words, he says that the running of the prescriptive period is interrupted upon the filing of the Information at the RTC). CA affirmed the decision of RTC of Manila stating that libel had not yet prescribed since the one-year prescription period should be reckoned from the time that the private complainant Prudente filed his complaint with the fiscals office on Jan 15, 1988, and not when the Informations were filed by the prosecutor on Jan 16, 1989. Under Sec 1, Rule 110, which took effect during the pendency of the cases, the institution of the complaint before the fiscals office or the courts for preliminary investigation interrupts the prescriptive period of the offense charged. Being a procedural rule, Sec 1, Rule 110 applies to the cases against Brillante. Issue: W/N the filing of the complaint with the fiscals office suspends the running of the prescriptive period of a crime YES Held: 4th paragraph of RPC provides that the crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year. Art 91 of RPC states that the prescriptive period shall be interrupted by the filling of the complaint or information. In the landmark case of People v Olarte, the Court held that the filing of the complaint (for purposes of preliminary investigation) with the fiscals office interrupts the period of prescription of criminal responsibility. Therefore, the offense of libel had not yet prescribed when the informations against Brillante and co-accused were filed in RTC Manila and RTC Makati.

Policy: The running of the prescriptive period is interrupted with the filing of a complaint at the fiscals office.