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.