Short answer. Yes, it interrupts it. Article 91 says the period is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. The interruption is not permanent: the clock runs again if the proceedings end without a conviction or an acquittal, or are unjustifiably stopped for a reason not attributable to the accused.
What the law says
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him
Revised Penal Code, Article 91 — When Prescription Starts Running. Read the full provision →
Filing stops the clock, it does not destroy it
Article 91 says the prescriptive period shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted. Read the two halves together. Filing suspends the running of the period, so time spent while the case is pending is not held against the complainant. But the same sentence contemplates the suspension ending. Prescription is paused by a live case, not abolished by one, and a case that goes away without a verdict puts the period back in motion.
The elapsed time before filing still counts
This is the point that surprises people. The article speaks of the period commencing to run again, not of it starting afresh. So the months or years that ran between discovery and the filing are not wiped out by the filing. If a case is dismissed without a verdict and the complainant wants to refile, what remains is the original period minus whatever had already elapsed. Anyone in that position needs the two dates — when the period began and when the complaint was filed — before working out whether there is any time left.
What ends the interruption, and what does not
The article identifies two situations that restart the clock: proceedings terminating without conviction or acquittal, and proceedings unjustifiably stopped for a reason not imputable to the accused. The second is a deliberate protection. Where a case stalls through no fault of the accused, the delay is not allowed to work indefinitely against him. Where the case instead ends in a conviction or an acquittal, the prescription question is over — those outcomes dispose of the criminal liability rather than leaving a period to resume.
The paperwork that settles it
Three documents usually answer the whole question. The date-stamped copy of the complaint or information, which fixes when the interruption began. The order disposing of the case, which shows whether it ended with a verdict or without one. And whatever establishes when the period started running in the first place. Keep certified copies rather than photographs, because dates on the face of the record are what a court will work from. If the margin looks narrow, that is a reason to see a lawyer quickly rather than to wait for certainty.