Case Summary (G.R. No. 81381)
Applicable Law
The case is governed by the Revised Penal Code, specifically concerning the prescription of criminal actions.
Overview of the Case
The petitioner, Atty. Efigenio S. Damasco, was charged with grave threats against one Rafael K. Sumadohat. The accusations centered around statements Damasco allegedly made on July 8, 1987, that included threats to kill Sumadohat. Following an arraignment, Damasco pleaded not guilty. At trial, the respondent Judge Laqui convicted Damasco of light threats instead of grave threats, issuing a sentence that included a fine and costs.
Motion to Rectify
Subsequently, Damasco filed a Motion to Rectify and Set Aside the lower court's decision, arguing that since the offense of light threats had already prescribed by the time the Information was filed, he could not be convicted of it. He highlighted that the crime occurred on July 8, 1987, while the Information was only filed on September 17, 1987—beyond the two-month prescription period for light threats, as stipulated in Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code.
Court's Ruling on Prescription
The trial court denied Damasco's motion, asserting that the jurisdiction conferred by the Information was unaffected by the prescription of the lesser charge. The court maintained that it had acquired jurisdiction over the case, which included grave threats, and that this jurisdiction could not be lost simply because the evidence pointed to light threats.
Arguments from the Solicitor General
The Office of the Solicitor General, in its comments, acknowledged the trial court’s misunderstanding regarding the nature of jurisdiction. They corrected the assertion that the court's jurisdiction could not be lost due to prescription, emphasizing that once the lesser offense had prescribed, a conviction for that offense was not warranted even if the greater offense was still validly charged.
Precedential Influence
Reference was made to precedents such as Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, asserting that an individual cannot be convicted of a lesser offense that has already prescribed when charged within a greater offense. This principle serves to prevent any potential abuse of the justice system that could arise from charging an individual with a graver offense to circumvent statutory prescription.
Conclusion and Disposition
The court ultimately ruled in favor of Damasco, granting
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 81381)
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Efigenio S. Damasco
- Respondents: Judge Hilario L. Laqui (Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 59, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila), The People of the Philippines
- G.R. No.: 81381
- Date of Resolution: September 30, 1988
- Court: Second Division
Factual Background
- An Information dated September 11, 1987, was filed on September 17, 1987, with the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaluyong, charging Efigenio S. Damasco with grave threats.
- The accusation was based on threats made against one Rafael K. Sumadohat on July 8, 1987, including remarks suggesting the intent to kill and possession of a firearm.
- Upon arraignment, Damasco pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Trial Court Proceedings
- After trial, the respondent Judge determined that the evidence did not support a conviction for grave threats but rather for light threats.
- Damasco was convicted of light threats and sentenced to a fine of P100.00 and costs.
Motion to Rectify and Set Aside
- Damasco filed a Motion to Rectify and Set Aside the judgment, arguing that he could not be convicted of light threats since the offense had already prescribed by the time the Information was filed.
- He noted that the crime of light threats prescribes in two months (60 days) and that the complaint was filed after 71 days from the date of the alleged offense.