G.R. No. 81381 - Damasco vs. Laqui

Petitioner Atty. Efigenio S. Damasco was charged with the crime of grave threats as alleged in an Information dated 11 September 1987 and filed on 17 September 1987 with the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaluyong, Branch 59.
The offense was said to have been committed on 8 July 1987 in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila when petitioner allegedly threatened Rafael K. Sumadohat with remarks indicating that he would be killed using a firearm.

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.
During trial, respondent Judge Hilario L. Laqui found that the evidence could not establish grave threats but only that of light threats—a lesser offense.
Based on the evidence, petitioner was convicted of light threats, sentenced to pay a fine of P100.00, and ordered to shoulder the court costs.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Rectify and Set Aside the dispositive part of the judge’s decision.
His contention was that he could not be convicted of light threats (a lesser offense included in grave threats) because the light threat offense had prescribed by the time the information was filed.
He argued that since the crime was committed on 8 July 1987 and the Information was filed on 17 September 1987 (71 days later), and knowing that light threats prescribe in two months (60 days), the conviction must be invalid due to prescription.

The lower court held that the filing of the Information within the prescriptive period for grave threats conferred jurisdiction on the court.
It reasoned that once such jurisdiction was acquired, it could not be lost—even if after trial the evidence proved only the commission of the lesser offense of light threats.

The Solicitor General noted that the respondent Judge appeared to equate the issue with loss of jurisdiction.
However, the real legal dispute was whether it was proper to convict petitioner of light threats (which had prescribed) even though the Information had been filed within the period for grave threats.
The comment emphasized that, as supported by precedent, conviction for a lesser offense that has prescribed is impermissible.

The Court referred to Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, which held that an accused found to have committed a lesser offense includible in a graver one cannot be convicted of the lesser offense if it has already prescribed.
Other cited authorities included cases such as People v. Del Rosario, and Felino Reyes vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, alongside relevant provisions from the Revised Penal Code, and the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Whether the principle that the allegations in the Information confer jurisdiction—which, once acquired, cannot be lost—applies to the conviction for a lesser offense (light threats) that was proven at trial.
Whether the lower court erred in convicting petitioner for light threats despite the fact that the light threat offense had already prescribed by the time the Information was filed.

Whether the rule established in Francisco vs. CA, which bars conviction of a lesser offense (included within the greater offense charged) if the lesser offense has prescribed, should control the case.
Whether the conviction for light threats, an offense with a limitation period of two months, can stand when the filing occurred beyond the prescribed period for that offense.

Whether prescription, understood as the loss or waiver by the State of its right to prosecute, should bar the conviction for light threats even if the Information was filed on time for the charged grave threat.
The issue of whether any proposal to limit prescription to merely a bar to the commencement of action (and thereby waivable) is compatible with substantive criminal law provisions, particularly Art. 69 of the Revised Penal Code and Sec. 8, Rule 117, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.