G.R. No. L-81381 September 30, 1988
EFIGENIO S. DAMASCO, petitioner, vs. JUDGE HILARIO L. LAQUI and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Efigenio S. Damasco was charged with Grave Threats in an Information filed on September 17, 1987, alleging he threatened Rafael K. Sumadohat on July 8, 1987. After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court found the evidence insufficient to prove Grave Threats but sufficient to establish the lesser offense of Light Threats. Consequently, the court convicted Damasco of Light Threats and sentenced him to pay a fine.
Damasco filed a Motion to Rectify and Set Aside the decision, arguing he could not be validly convicted of the lesser included offense of Light Threats because it had already prescribed. The crime was committed on July 8, 1987, and the Information was filed 71 days later on September 17, 1987. Light Threats, a light offense, prescribes in two months or 60 days under the Revised Penal Code. Thus, prescription had set in before the filing of the Information. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that jurisdiction, once acquired over the graver offense charged, is not lost even if only a lesser offense is proven.

ISSUE

Whether an accused can be convicted of a lesser offense necessarily included in the crime charged when the prosecution for that lesser offense has already prescribed.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the conviction. The Court reiterated the doctrine established in Francisco v. Court of Appeals: an accused cannot be convicted of a lesser included offense if that lesser offense has already prescribed at the time the information is filed. The trial court’s reasoning that jurisdiction over the graver offense is retained was misplaced. The issue was not jurisdiction over the person or the crime charged, but the substantive defense of prescription which extinguishes criminal liability.
Prescription of a crime is a substantive matter that results in the loss of the State’s right to prosecute. While procedural rules generally deem defenses waived if not raised in a motion to quash before plea, prescription is an exception as it pertains to the extinction of criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code. This substantive right cannot be diminished by procedural rules. To allow a conviction for a prescribed lesser offense through the expedient of charging a graver offense would circumvent the law on prescription. The Court emphasized that any departure from this rule would require a legislative overhaul, as judicial rule-making cannot modify substantive rights. Therefore, Damasco’s conviction for the already-prescribed offense of Light Threats was invalid.