Facts

• On November 25, 2017 at about 10:45 a.m., complainant Roberto Amado Hatamosa was intercepted on his way to work at a barbershop in Parañaque City, Metro Manila, by Pastor Corpus, Jr., Resurecion Zamora and Felix Corpus, who shouted at and assaulted him, Pastor punching him in the face.
• On January 8, 2018 Roberto filed his Complaint-Affidavit with the prosecutor's office; on April 30, 2018 he executed a formal Complaint-Affidavit, the basis of the charge.
• On May 21, 2018 the Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque filed an Information for serious physical injuries under Article 263. Exactly 177 days had elapsed from the commission of the offence. That number is the case.
• On November 20, 2018 the MeTC, Branch 88, Parañaque City convicted Pastor of the lesser necessarily included crime of slight physical injuries under Article 266, imposing arresto menor of thirty (30) days.
• On March 20, 2019 the RTC, Branch 257, under Judge Rolando G. How, affirmed in its entirety.
• On March 13, 2020 the Court of Appeals (Sixth Division, Justice Galapate-Laguilles) denied the appeal, holding that because the Information charged serious physical injuries, the action had not prescribed. Reconsideration was denied February 10, 2021.
• The delay was the prosecutor's, not the complainant's — Roberto had filed within seven weeks; the Information took another four and a half months.
• On August 16, 2023 the Second Division granted the Rule 45 petition, reversed, and acquitted.

Issue

Ruling

"ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 43154 are REVERSED. Pastor Corpus, Jr. y Belmoro is ACQUITTED of the crime of Slight Physical Injuries on the ground of prescription.

Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

• Prescription totally extinguishes criminal liability under Article 89§(5), and it is a substantive right under Article VIII, Section 5(5)§ — one the Court's rule-making power "cannot be diminished, increased, or modified."
• The controlling rule is Francisco v. Court of Appeals: "the accused cannot be convicted of an offense lesser than that charged if the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed." To hold otherwise "would be to sanction the circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of accusing the defendant of the graver offense."
• The arithmetic is then decisive. Serious physical injuries, punishable by prisión correccional, prescribes in ten years; but the crime established by the evidence was slight physical injuries, a light offence, prescribing in two months (60 days).
• On tolling, the Court reconciled Article 91 with Section 11 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, applying Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr. and Jadewell: for offences under the Rules of Summary Procedure committed within Metropolitan Manila and chartered cities, the prescriptive period is tolled only by the filing of the Information in court, and not by the filing of a complaint before the investigating body.
• The Court placed the blame where it lay and said so. The delay "was not imputable to the private complainant, but to the prosecutor's office," and it exhorted prosecutors to keep[] in mind the prescriptive periods of crimes and timely fil[e] the necessary Informations in court to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

Doctrine

• "[T]he accused cannot be convicted of an offense lesser than that charged if the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed" — otherwise the law on prescription could be circumvented "by the simple expedient of accusing the defendant of the graver offense."
• The Metro Manila summary tolling rule. Within Metro Manila and chartered cities, summary-procedure offences are commenced only by Information in court, so the period "is only halted on the date the Information is filed in court," and the executive preliminary investigation does not toll it.
• Substantive rights prevail over procedure: rules of procedure "must yield to substantive law when they affect substantive rights," and prescription is a substantive right that totally extinguishes criminal liability.
• Prescription may be raised at any stage, being a question of law.

• This tolling rule has since been abandoned — prospectively. In an En Banc ruling the Court abandoned the Desierto / Corpus, Jr. tolling rule for summary and expedited procedure, holding that filing the criminal complaint before the prosecution office tolls prescription even for such offences. But "in line with the time-honored principle that the interpretation most favorable to the accused must be adopted," that new rule applies PROSPECTIVELY — so Corpus, Jr. remains controlling for acts committed during its effectivity. Recite the sequence, not just the outcome.
• The rule is geographically bounded in its own terms: it speaks to summary-procedure offences within Metropolitan Manila and chartered cities.
• And note the alternative remedy the Court identifies: where undue delay in preliminary investigation does not produce prescription, the accused's recourse is the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III — not prescription.
• Contrast Arambulo v. Laqui, where filing with the prosecutor did toll the period for libel — an offence outside summary procedure. The two cases are not in conflict; they turn on which procedural track the offence rides.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

• November 25, 2017, at approximately 10:45 a.m.: Complainant Roberto Amado Hatamosa was intercepted on his way to work at a barbershop in Parañaque City, Metro Manila, by Pastor Corpus, Jr., Resurecion Zamora, and Felix Corpus, who shouted at him and assaulted him, with Pastor punching Roberto in the face and causing physical injuries.
• January 8, 2018: Roberto executed and filed his Complaint-Affidavit before the prosecutor's office for the purpose of initiating the criminal action against the accused.
• April 30, 2018: Roberto executed a formal Complaint-Affidavit, which served as the basis for the subsequent charge of serious physical injuries.
• May 21, 2018: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque City filed an Information in court against Pastor charging him with the crime of serious physical injuries under Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code. At this point, exactly 177 days had elapsed from the date of the commission of the offense.
• November 20, 2018: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 88, Parañaque City, rendered its Decision in Criminal Case No. 18-1084, finding Pastor guilty of the lesser necessarily included crime of slight physical injuries under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of arresto menor or thirty (30) days.
• March 20, 2019: On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 257, Parañaque City, in Criminal Case No. 2019-0059, presided by Judge Rolando G. How, rendered a Decision affirming the MeTC's judgment of conviction in its entirety.
• April 29, 2019: Pastor filed an appeal of the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (procedural particulars of the filing of this specific appeal are NOT IN RECORD).
• March 13, 2020: The Court of Appeals (CA), Sixth Division, in CA-G.R. CR No. 43154, rendered its Decision (penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles) denying the appeal and affirming the RTC's decision, holding that because the Information charged serious physical injuries, the action had not prescribed.
• February 10, 2021: The CA issued its Resolution denying Pastor's Motion for Reconsideration.
• August 16, 2023: The Supreme Court Second Division promulgated its Decision granting the Petition for Review under Rule 45, reversing the CA, and acquitting Pastor Corpus, Jr. on the ground of prescription.

Arguments of the Parties

• Prescription of the Light Offense: Petitioner argued that since the evidence only sustained a conviction for the lesser, necessarily included offense of slight physical injuries (which is a light offense), and because a light offense prescribes in two (2) months under Article 90§ of the Revised Penal Code, the crime had already prescribed.
• Filing in Metro Manila: He contended that for offenses covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure committed in Metropolitan Manila, the running of the prescriptive period is only tolled by the filing of the Information in court, and not by the filing of the complaint before the prosecutor's office, pursuant to the doctrines in Zaldivia and Jadewell. Since the Information was filed on May 21, 2018—177 days after the November 25, 2017 incident—the two-month prescriptive period had already expired.
• No Conviction for Prescribed Lesser Offense: Citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, he argued that an accused cannot be validly convicted of a lesser necessarily included offense if that lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the Information charging the graver offense was filed in court.

• Information Charged Serious Physical Injuries: The respondent argued that the Information filed against Pastor charged him with serious physical injuries, which is a correctional penalty punishable by prision correccional and prescribes in ten (10) years.
• Timely Filing: The prosecution asserted that because the Information was filed in court just less than half a year after the commission of the crime, the criminal action was timely filed within the ten-year period and had not prescribed.

• Operational Dates: Both parties agreed that the altercation and physical injuries occurred on November 25, 2017, and that the Information was filed in court on May 21, 2018.
• Factual Injury: Both parties recognized that the physical injuries sustained by Roberto were slight in nature, and did not meet the medical threshold for serious physical injuries.

Issue

Ruling

• MAIN ISSUE: NO. The Supreme Court ruled that Pastor Corpus, Jr. cannot be convicted of slight physical injuries because the light offense had already prescribed when the Information was filed in court. In Metropolitan Manila and chartered cities, the running of the prescriptive period for summary procedure offenses is tolled ONLY by the filing of the Information in court, and not by the filing of the complaint before the prosecutor's office [10-12]. Since 177 days had elapsed from the date of commission to the filing of the Information, the two-month prescriptive period for slight physical injuries had expired.
• SECONDARY ISSUE: YES. The Court found merit in the petition, noting that while factual issues are generally beyond the scope of a petition under Rule 45, the prescription of the offense is a question of law that totally extinguishes criminal liability under Article 89§(5) of the Revised Penal Code and may be raised at any stage.

"ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 43154 are REVERSED. Pastor Corpus, Jr. y Belmoro is ACQUITTED of the crime of Slight Physical Injuries on the ground of prescription.

Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

1. Extinction of Criminal Liability via Prescription: Under Article 89§, Paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the prescription of the crime. The Court emphasized that this is a substantive right under Article VIII, Section 5(5)§ of the 1987 Constitution, which cannot be diminished, increased, or modified by the Supreme Court’s rule-making power.
2. The Landmark Rule in Francisco v. Court of Appeals: The Court anchored its decision on the fundamental rule laid down in Francisco v. Court of Appeals. Under this rule, "the accused cannot be convicted of an offense lesser than that charged if the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed". To hold otherwise would be to sanction the circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of accusing the defendant of the graver offense.
3. Determining the Prescriptive Period: The Court noted that while serious physical injuries is punishable by prision correccional and prescribes in ten (10) years, the crime established by the evidence was slight physical injuries under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. Under Article 90§ of the Revised Penal Code, light offenses prescribe in two (2) months (60 days).
4. Tolling of Summary Procedure Crimes in Metro Manila: The Court reconciled the computation of the prescriptive period under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 11 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. The Court applied the doctrines in Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr. and Jadewell, clarifying that for offenses covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure and committed within Metropolitan Manila and chartered cities, the prescriptive period is tolled only by the filing of the Information in court, and not by the filing of a complaint before the investigating body/prosecutor's office [10-12].
5. Exhortation to Prosecutors: The Court highlighted that the delay was not imputable to the private complainant, but to the prosecutor's office, which failed to timely file the Information before the court. The Court exhorted prosecutors to diligently discharge their functions by keeping in mind the prescriptive periods of crimes and timely filing the necessary Informations in court to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

• The Non-Circumvention Rule of Prescription: An accused cannot be validly convicted of a lesser necessarily included offense if that lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the Information was filed. Convicting the accused under such circumstances represents a patent violation of the substantive right to prescription.
• The Metromanila Summary Tolling Rule (Desierto/Corpus Rule): Within Metro Manila and chartered cities, summary procedure offenses (including light offenses and violations of ordinances) are commenced only by Information in court. Consequently, the prescriptive period is only halted on the date the Information is filed in court, and the executive preliminary investigation does not toll the period [10-12].
• Uncompromising Nature of Substantive Rights: Rules of procedure, including the Rules of Summary Procedure, must yield to substantive law when they affect substantive rights. Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right and is totally extinguishing of criminal liability.

• The Prospective Abandonment of the Desierto/Corpus Summary Tolling Rule: In a subsequent En Banc case, G.R. No. 258563 (April 2025/August 2026), the Supreme Court ABANDONED the tolling rules of Desierto and Corpus, Jr. with respect to the expedited/summary procedure. The En Banc resolved that the filing of the criminal complaint before the prosecution office/DOJ, even if it involves offenses covered by summary or expedited procedures, shall toll the running of the prescriptive period. However, the En Banc held that in line with the time-honored principle that the interpretation most favorable to the accused must be adopted, this new rule shall apply PROSPECTIVELY. Therefore, Corpus, Jr. remains controlling for acts committed during its effectivity prior to the prospective abandonment.
• Prejudicial Delay as a Speedy Disposition Violation: If there is undue delay in the preliminary investigation that does not fall within the strict prescriptive period rules, the accused's remedy is to invoke the violation of their constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III of the Constitution, rather than the prescription of the offense.

Separate Opinions