DOCTRINE

The accused cannot be convicted of an offense lesser than that charged if the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed. To hold otherwise would be to sanction the circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of accusing the defendant of the graver offense.

FACTS

On November 25, 2017, Pastor Corpus and others allegedly attacked Roberto Hatamosa, causing injuries. Roberto filed a complaint on January 8, 2018. The prosecutor found evidence insufficient for serious physical injuries but recommended the filing of information for slight physical injuries. However, the information was filed only on May 21, 2018.

The trial court convicted Pastor of slight physical injuries, sentencing him to 30 days of arresto menor and moral damages. On appeal, the CA affirmed, ruling that the information for serious physical injuries interrupted prescription.

ISSUE

Does the filing of complaint for cases under the Rules of Summary Procedure toll the prescriptive period?

RULING

NO, slight physical injuries prescribe in two months under the Revised Penal Code, and the filing of the information in May 2018 was beyond this period. The Court clarified that for cases under the Rules of Summary Procedure, only the filing of an information in court tolls the prescriptive period, not the preliminary investigation, viz:

[T]his Court clarified in the more recent case of Republic v. Desierto that for crimes falling under the Rules of Summary Procedure and within the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Manila, the complaint or information referred to in Article 91 of the RPC is that which is filed in the proper court and not the complaint lodged by the offended party before the prosecutor’s office:

xxx xxx xxx

In other words, in Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities, prescriptive period is tolled only by the filing of an Information in court and not by the commencement of a preliminary investigation by the investigating body nor the institution of the complaint with the investigating body. Other than Metropolitan Manila and Chartered Cities, the criminal action is commenced by filing a complaint or information before the court. In the same vein, the running of the prescriptive period is interrupted by either the complaint or information filed in court.

xxx xxx xxx

Consequently, the ruling laid down in Desierto is relevant and appropriate in the case at bar, in that the filing of the Complaint against Pastor did not toll the running of the prescriptive period. From the reckoning point of November 25, 2017 until May 21, 2018 when the prosecutor’s office filed the Information against Pastor, 177 days have already lapsed. Clearly, the crime for which the petitioner was found guilty had already prescribed on the basis of the absence of Information filed before the trial court.