G.R. No.

81381
September 30, 1988
EUGENIO DAMASCO VERSUS JUDGE HILARIO LAQUI
FACTS: Atty. Damasco on July 1987 threaten Rafael Sumadohat with
the infliction upon his person of a wrong amounting to crime. The
petitioner pleaded not guilty. Respondent Judge Laqui found that the
evidence presented did not establish the crime of grave threats but
only light threats. Petitioner filed a motion to rectify and set aside the
dispositive part of Respondent Judge contending that he cannot be
convicted of light threats necessarily included in grave threats charged
in the information as the lighter offense prescribed in the information
filed.
The crime was committed on July 8, 1987, it was filed on
September 17, 1987. Light threats prescribes in 2 months which means
60 days. The complaint was filed after 71 days. The trial court holds on
to the principle that the allegation in the information confers
jurisdiction and that jurisdiction once acquired cannot br lost. The
information was filed within prescriptive period. Grave threats cannot
be lost by prescription if after trial what has been proven is merely light
threats.
The Office of Solicitor General agreed with the trial court that the
allegations in the information confer jurisdiction and once acquired
cannot be lost but this is not applicable in the case. The jurisdiction of
lower court was never questioned, instead the legal dispute is whether
or not the Judge was right to convict the petitioner after finding him
guilty of the lesser offense of light threats but has already prescribed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the offense of light threats already prescribed.
RULING: Yes, the Petition is granted.
Philippine jurisprudence considers prescription of a crime or offense
as a loss or waiver by the state of its rights to prosecute an act
prohibited or punishable by law. Hence, while it is the rule that an
accused who fails to move to quash pleading is deemed to waive all
objections but thus rule cannot apply to the defense of prescription,
Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code to apply such rule contravenes
Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which is a part of substantive law.
Further strengthened by Section 8 Rules 117 of 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure which added extinction of offense as one exception to the

General rule regarding the effects of a failure to assert a motion to

quash.