Corpus, Jr. vs. People

An accused cannot be convicted of a lesser included offense if that lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed in court. To hold otherwise would sanction the circumvention of prescription laws by simply charging the graver offense.

On November 25, 2017, an altercation occurred between petitioner Pastor Corpus, Jr. and private complainant Roberto Amado Hatamosa in Parañaque City. Hatamosa alleged that the petitioner punched him in the face. A medico-legal report noted a fracture on Hatamosa's right finger. The prosecutor initially recommended a charge for serious physical injuries based on the alleged disfigurement. An information for serious physical injuries was filed on May 21, 2018. During trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found the evidence insufficient to prove the fracture was caused by the petitioner and convicted him instead for the lesser offense of slight physical injuries, which carried a penalty of arresto menor.

• Nature of the Case: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA decision that affirmed the petitioner's conviction for slight physical injuries.
• The Incident: On November 25, 2017, petitioner Pastor Corpus, Jr. and private complainant Roberto Amado Hatamosa figured in a physical altercation. Hatamosa claimed the petitioner punched him in the face.
• The Information: Based on a medico-legal report indicating a fracture on Hatamosa's right finger, the prosecutor filed an Information dated April 30, 2018, charging the petitioner with serious physical injuries under Article 263(3) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), alleging the injury caused disfigurement.
• Lower Court Proceedings: The MeTC found the evidence did not establish that the petitioner caused the fracture. It convicted the petitioner of the lesser offense of slight physical injuries (a light offense punishable by arresto menor), finding he inflicted injuries that required medical attendance for one to nine days. The RTC and CA affirmed this conviction.

• Prescription: Petitioner argued that the crime of slight physical injuries for which he was convicted had already prescribed. He contended that the information was filed more than two months after the commission of the offense, extinguishing his criminal liability.
• Self-Defense: Petitioner also claimed he acted in defense of his wife, who was allegedly attacked first by the private complainant.

• Nature of the Charge: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the information charged serious physical injuries, a crime with a longer prescriptive period (5, 10, or 15 years). Therefore, the filing of the information was timely, and the conviction for the included offense was proper under the variance doctrine.

• Prescription and Variance Doctrine: Whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction for slight physical injuries when that lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed.
• Validity of Conviction: Whether the petitioner's conviction for slight physical injuries was proper given the variance between the offense charged (serious physical injuries) and the offense proved.

• Prescription and Variance Doctrine: The petition was granted. The Court ruled that an accused cannot be convicted of a lesser included offense if that offense had already prescribed when the information was filed. The variance doctrine under Rule 120 of the Rules of Court cannot be applied to circumvent the substantive right of prescription.
• Application to Facts: Slight physical injuries is a light offense that prescribes in two months (Article 90, RPC). The incident occurred on November 25, 2017, and the information was filed on May 21, 2018—well beyond the two-month period. Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, which governs slight physical injuries, the prescriptive period is interrupted only by the filing of the information in court, not by the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office (Republic v. Desierto). Since no information for slight physical injuries was filed within two months, the offense prescribed. The MeTC thus had no jurisdiction to convict the petitioner for the prescribed offense.

• Prescription of Lesser Included Offenses — An accused cannot be convicted of a lesser included offense if that lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information for the graver offense was filed. The variance doctrine cannot be used to defeat the substantive defense of prescription.
• Interruption of Prescription for Summary Procedure Offenses — For crimes covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure (e.g., slight physical injuries), the prescriptive period is interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in the proper court, not by the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor's office for preliminary investigation.

• "Where an accused has been found to have committed a lesser offense includible within the offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser offense, if it has already prescribed. 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." — This passage from Francisco v. Court of Appeals, cited and applied by the Court, encapsulates the core ruling.

• Francisco v. Court of Appeals, 207 Phil. 471 (1983) — Controlling precedent applied. The Court followed this case, which established the rule that conviction for a lesser offense is barred if that offense has prescribed.
• Republic v. Desierto, G.R. No. 136506 (2023) — Applied to clarify that for offenses under the Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of the information in court tolls the prescriptive period.
• Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, 592 Phil. 286 (2008) — Distinguished. The Court noted its rationale for protecting complainants from prosecutorial delay but held it inapplicable to cases governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
• Zaldivia v. Judge Reyes, Jr., 286 Phil. 375 (1992) — Cited to support the principle that the Rules on Summary Procedure, as a special law, prevails over the general rules on criminal procedure regarding the commencement of an action and interruption of prescription.

• Article 90, Revised Penal Code — Provides that light offenses prescribe in two months.
• Article 91, Revised Penal Code — Governs the computation of prescription, stating it commences from discovery and is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information.
• Article 89(5), Revised Penal Code — States that criminal liability is totally extinguished by prescription of the crime.
• Article 266, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes slight physical injuries.
• Section 1, Rules on Summary Procedure — Establishes its scope, including criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed six months' imprisonment.
• Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120, Rules of Court — The variance doctrine, allowing conviction for an offense proved which is included in the offense charged.

• Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Senior Associate Justice, Chairperson)
• Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
• Rodil V. Zalameda
• Samuel H. Gaerlan