When Prescription Bars a Lesser Offense: Corpus v. People
The Court explains when an accused cannot be convicted of a lesser offense because it already prescribed before the information was filed.
The Supreme Court recently acquitted an accused convicted of slight physical injuries because the crime had already prescribed by the time the information was filed in court. The ruling in Corpus v. People clarifies an important rule on prescription and protects an accused from being convicted of a lesser offense that the prosecution filed too late.
The Facts of the Case
On November 25, 2017, Roberto Hatamosa was on his way to work when Pastor Corpus and two others allegedly intercepted him. An argument ensued, and Corpus punched Roberto in the face. The medico-legal report showed Roberto needed three to nine days of treatment. However, the report also noted a complete fracture at the proximal end of the fifth digit of Roberto's right hand.
The prosecutor's office treated the fracture as a disfigurement and indicted Corpus for serious physical injuries under Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) on May 21, 2018.
During trial, the prosecution failed to prove that Corpus caused the finger fracture. The MeTC instead convicted him of slight physical injuries under Article 266 of the RPC, a lesser included offense. Corpus appealed, arguing that the crime of slight physical injuries had already prescribed because more than two months had passed between the incident and the filing of the information.
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both affirmed the conviction. The appellate court reasoned that since the information charged serious physical injuries—which prescribes in ten years—the filing was timely. Corpus elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
The Issue: Can an Accused Be Convicted of a Prescribed Lesser Offense?
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Corpus, applying the variance doctrine under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court. This doctrine allows a court to convict an accused of a lesser offense proved during trial, even if the information charged a graver offense. However, the Court emphasized a critical limitation: the accused cannot be convicted of the lesser offense if that offense had already prescribed when the information was filed.
Citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained that to hold otherwise would sanction the circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of accusing the defendant of the graver offense.
The Prescription Period for Slight Physical Injuries
Under Article 90 of the RPC, light offenses prescribe in two months. Slight physical injuries, punishable by arresto menor, is a light offense. The Court noted that the incident occurred on November 25, 2017, but the information was filed only on May 21, 2018—177 days later, well beyond the two-month prescriptive period.
Why the Filing of the Complaint Did Not Interrupt Prescription
The prosecution argued that the prescriptive period was interrupted when Roberto filed his complaint-affidavit with the prosecutor's office on January 8, 2018. The Court disagreed.
Under Article 91 of the RPC, prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. However, the Court applied the ruling in Republic v. Desierto: for crimes governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure and within the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Manila, prescription is tolled only by the filing of the information in court, not by the filing of a complaint before the prosecutor's office.
Slight physical injuries, punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six months, falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure. Since the case was within Metropolitan Manila, only the filing of the information in court could interrupt the prescriptive period. The complaint filed with the prosecutor's office did not toll the running of the period.
The Court's Exhortation to Prosecutors
The Court acknowledged the unfortunate outcome for the private complainant, who diligently pursued his case. The delay was attributable to the prosecutor's office, which took over four months to file the information. The Court exhorted prosecutors to remain mindful of the prescriptive periods of crimes and to file the necessary information before the proper court in a timely manner.
Practical Takeaways
- Prescription is a substantive right. An accused cannot be convicted of a lesser offense that had already prescribed at the time the information was filed, even if the graver offense charged had not yet prescribed.
- For summary procedure cases in Metro Manila, prescription is interrupted only by the filing of the information in court, not by the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor's office.
- Light offenses prescribe in two months. Prosecutors must act quickly in such cases, or the accused may be acquitted on prescription grounds.
- The variance doctrine has limits. While courts may convict an accused of a lesser included offense, this power cannot be used to revive a prescribed crime.
This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.
Have a question about this topic?
This article is general information, not legal advice. Ask ASG Legal AI for a cited, plain-language answer on your own situation — free, no sign-up.