Scribd
Upload
489 views1 page

Damasco v. Laqui

This case involved a petitioner, Atty. Damasco, who was charged with grave threats in September 1987 but was only found guilty of the lesser crime of light threats. However, the crime of light threats had already prescribed under the 60-day period. The lower court denied the petitioner's motion claiming prescription had passed. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the lower court's decision, holding that if a graver offense is reduced to a lighter offense that has already prescribed, the defendant cannot be convicted as it circumvents the law on prescription. Prescription results in the loss of the state's ability to prosecute and can be used as a defense despite no motion to quash under the rules of criminal procedure.

Uploaded by

Dudly Rios
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
489 views1 page

Damasco v. Laqui

This case involved a petitioner, Atty. Damasco, who was charged with grave threats in September 1987 but was only found guilty of the lesser crime of light threats. However, the crime of light threats had already prescribed under the 60-day period. The lower court denied the petitioner's motion claiming prescription had passed. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the lower court's decision, holding that if a graver offense is reduced to a lighter offense that has already prescribed, the defendant cannot be convicted as it circumvents the law on prescription. Prescription results in the loss of the state's ability to prosecute and can be used as a defense despite no motion to quash under the rules of criminal procedure.

Uploaded by

Dudly Rios
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DAMASCO v.

LAQUI
Facts: Atty. Damasco was charged with grave threats in Sept. 17, 1987, and after trial, Judge Laqui
found that the evidence only showed the crime of light threats. Petitioner filed a motion assailing the
decision and contending that the offense of light threats had already prescribed. The crime occurred in
July and the case was filed only in September, long past the 60-day prescription period. The lower
court denied the motion and said that its jurisdiction cannot be lost through prescription once aqcuired.
Hence this petition.
Issue: Whether or not it was proper for Laqui to still convict petitioner of the crime of light threats
when the offense has already prescribed
Held: Petition granted and the questioned decision is set aside.
Ratio: In Francisco v. CA, the Court ruled that when a person charged with a graver offense is found
only to be guilty of the lighter offense cannot be convicted of such since this is a circumvention of the
law on prescription. Prescription, under Philippine jurisprudence, results in the loss or waiver of the
State to prosecute the act punished by law. Article 89 of the RPC a substantive law considers that the
defense of prescription can be used despite the absence of a motion to quash, and this is supported by
Section 8, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. To overturn the Francisco decision, there
is a need to overhaul the existing rules of criminal procedure to give prescription a limited meaning.
But while the Court can promulgate rules regarding procedure in all courts, the rules cannot diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights.

You might also like