Prescription of Offenses

1. On October 14, 1990, Julie was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City with the
crime of serious slander allegedly committed on May 12, 1990.
After trial, the court found that Julie had committed the crime of light – not serious – slander. Accordingly,
it convicted Julie of light slander and sentenced her to pay a fine of P100.00 plus moral damages, attorney’s fees and
costs.
On appeal, Julie contended that she may not be convicted of the crime of light slander because it has already
prescribed.
However, the prosecution countered that as Julie did not move for the quashal of the information on the
ground of prescription, she is deemed to have waived such defense.
How should the appeal be resolved? Explain. (1993, #10)

Answer:
The appeal should be resolved in favor of Julie. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as
amended, prescription is not deemed waived for failure of the accused to assert such ground of a motion
to quash before he pleads to a complaint or information and such ground may be raised on appeal.

2. On May 20, 1992, the police charged accused before the Prosecutor’s Office with violation of a municipal
ordinance which carries a penalty of six months imprisonment. The offense was allegedly committed on 11 May
1990.
On October 2, 1992, the corresponding Information was filed with the MTC.
Accused moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed for the reason that
the information was filed beyond the two-month period from the date of the alleged offense.
For its part, the prosecution contended that the prescriptive period was suspended upon the filing the
complaint against accused with the Office of the Prosecutor.
Who is correct? Explain. (1993, #18)

Answer:
The accused is correct. The offense charged, violation of a municipal ordinance, is governed by
the Rule on Summary Procedure. Under the 1988 amendment of Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure, the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts the period of
prescription of the offense charged. However, this provision applies to “offenses not subject to the rule on
summary procedure in special cases”, according to the opening phrase in said Section 1 of Rule 110.
Consequently, when the corresponding information was filed with the MTC, the offense had already
prescribed.

3. The accused filed a motion to quash the information on two grounds, to wit, the facts charged do not
constitute an offense and there are averments in the information which, if true, would constitute a legal
justification. The motion was denied. Eventually, the accused was convicted. He appealed to the CA. The new
defense counsel discovered that the information was filed on a Monday and that the last day for the filing of the
information actually fell on the preceding Sunday.
Had the offense prescribed? If it had, could the defense invoke for the first time on appeal as error, the trial
court’s non-dismissal of the information on the ground of prescription? (1987, # 10)

Answer:
Yes. The offense had prescribed. Where the last day for the filing of an information falls on a
Sunday or legal holiday, the period of prescription cannot be extended up to the next working day as
prescription automatically sets in.
Yes. The defense may invoke for the first time on appeal the non-dismissal of the information on
the ground of prescription, inasmuch as under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure extinction of
criminal action or liability, which includes prescription, is not deemed waived by failure to move to quash
on that ground.
 2

4. On February 21, 1990, Enrique Magno was stabbed on the right arm by Armando Reyes at Balara,
Quezon City. A complaint for slight physical injuries was filed against Reyes with the office of the City Prosecutor
on February 28, 1990 as the injuries required five (5) days of medical attendance. The information for slight
physical injuries was filed on May 12, 1990 with the Quezon Metropolitan Trial Court. Reyes moved to quash the
information on the ground of prescription as it was filed on the 80th day, whereas the prescriptive period for slight
physical injuries is 60 days.
Should the motion to quash be granted? Decide with reasons. (1990, #13)

Answer:
No, because under the 1988 Amendments to the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the filing of the
complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor on 28 February 1990 interrupted the prescription of the
offense charged.