Prescription of Light Offenses in Philippine Criminal Law
A doctrinal and jurisprudential survey
1. Concept and Policy
“Prescription” (or limitation) in criminal law is the State-imposed expiry date for the right to prosecute an act already committed or, after conviction, for the right to enforce the penalty. It rests on two rationales:
- Lapse of time dulls memory and evidence, impairing fair trial guarantees; and
- Social repose—at some point society prefers to forget minor wrongs rather than perpetually threaten offenders with prosecution.
Because light offenses carry the least penalties, the law fixes the shortest prescriptive periods for them.
2. Statutory Framework
| Provision | Key Rule | Textual anchor |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 9, Revised Penal Code (RPC) | Defines light offenses as those punishable by arresto menor (1–30 days) or a fine not > ₱40,000 (as adjusted by R.A. 10951). | “Owing to their light penalties …” |
| Art. 90, RPC | Prescription of crimes: “Offenses punishable by arresto menor prescribe in two (2) months.” | |
| Art. 91, RPC | How to compute—period runs from the day of the crime’s commission, or when discovered by the offended party/authorities if unknown, and is interrupted by: (i) filing a complaint or information, (ii) issuance of a warrant of arrest, or (iii) the offender’s absence from the Philippines. | |
| Art. 92, RPC | Prescription is not interrupted when proceedings are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or for reasons that do not touch the merits, allowing the period to resume running. | |
| Art. 93, RPC | Prescription of penalties: penalties of arresto menor or a fine ≤ ₱40,000 prescribe in one (1) year from the date judgment becomes final if the convict does not serve it. | |
| LGC 1991, §410(d) | Barangay complaints timely filed “suspend” prescriptive periods while conciliation is pending. |
3. Catalogue of Light Offenses (illustrative)
- Slight physical injuries (Art. 266, par. 2).
- Unjust vexation (Art. 287).
- Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).
- Alarms and scandals (Art. 155).
- Slander by deed where arresto menor applies (Art. 359).
Many special-law misdemeanors also carry fines alone; if the law is silent on prescription, Art. 90 applies suppletorily (Art. 10, RPC).
4. Computation in Practice
Starting point If the commission is known: count 60 days from the date of the act. If initially concealed: count from discovery by either the offended party, a law-enforcement agent, or any public authority (People v. Dizon, 87 Phil. 289 (1950)).
Interruption / Tolling
- Filing for preliminary investigation People v. Olarte (G.R. L-13027, 18 Mar 1965) pioneered the rule that a complaint filed—even with a court or prosecutor that lacks jurisdiction to try—interrupts prescription because “the law favors prosecution over technicalities.” This doctrine, first applied to libel (one-year period), has been consistently extended to light offenses (e.g., Panaguiton Jr. v. DOJ, G.R. 167571, 25 Nov 2008).
- Barangay proceedings Montelibano v. People, G.R. 181089, 15 Mar 2010, read §410 LGC with Art. 91 and held that the mandatory filing with the Lupon suspends prescription until the parties receive a certificate to file action.
- Absence from the Philippines—any fractional day counts (Art. 91, last par.)
Resumption If the complaint is provisionally dismissed without the accused’s express consent, the prescriptive clock resumes; but a dismissal with the accused’s objection does not revive the period (People v. Del Rosario, G.R. L-15175, 29 Jan 1962).
5. Key Jurisprudence Digest
| Case | G.R. No. / Date | Doctrine |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Dizon | 87 Phil. 289 (1950) | Discovery rule applies; for slight physical injuries, 2-month period runs from discovery, not commission, when victim unaware of injuries till later. |
| People v. Olarte | L-13027, 18 Mar 1965 | Filing a complaint—even before an office without trial jurisdiction—interrupts prescription. |
| Reodica v. CA | 125066, 17 Apr 1997 | An affidavit-complaint lodged with the prosecutor within 60 days tolls prescription; subsequent amicable settlement does not revive a lapsed period if case is later re-filed. |
| Domingo v. CA | 116194, 30 Jan 1998 | Withdrawal of an information at the behest of the private complainant reactivates the prescriptive clock; by the time a new information was filed, the offense (unjust vexation) was already barred. |
| Cudia v. CA | 110315, 2 Sept 1994 | Presence of the accused abroad before expiry of the period suspends running even without proof of deliberate flight. |
| Panaguiton Jr. v. DOJ | 167571, 25 Nov 2008 | Olarte doctrine reaffirmed; filing with the City Prosecutor is a valid interruption for all offenses—including light ones. |
| Lamsen v. People | 193853, 30 Jan 2013 | For unjust vexation, the two-month prescriptive clock resumed when the first complaint was dismissed; refiling after more than 60 days was time-barred. |
| Mercal v. People | 230896, 15 Aug 2022 | Clarified that the one-year prescription of the penalty (Art. 93) begins only after finality of judgment and the convict’s non-service, not from promulgation alone. |
(The above list focuses on Supreme Court decisions that either directly concern light offenses or refine the general rules yet control their application.)
6. Distinguishing Crime-Prescription and Penalty-Prescription
| Aspect | Crime (Art. 90–92) | Penalty (Art. 93–95) |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | Date of commission / discovery | Date judgment becomes final and convict evades service |
| Period for light offense/penalty | 2 months | 1 year |
| Interruptions | Filing of complaint / warrant / absence | Only if convict surrenders, is captured, or the penalty is served |
| Effect of lapse | Bars prosecution; court must dismiss motu proprio | Bars execution; court must order case closed |
A single act may therefore escape both prosecution and execution if the State sleeps on its rights at both stages.
7. Special-Law Misdemeanors
When a special statute is silent on prescription, the RPC rules apply suppletorily (Art. 10, RPC; People v. Castro, L-4891, 24 Apr 1953). For example, minor regulatory infractions under the Consumer Act or Clean Air Act punishable only by modest fines have been treated by lower courts as “light” for prescriptive purposes.
8. Practice Pointers
- File early—even a barangay complaint stops the clock; an affidavit-complaint with the prosecutor is safer.
- Track dismissals: if the case is provisionally dismissed or withdrawn, diary the remaining days; they resume immediately.
- Defense strategy: prescription is jurisdictional; it may be raised any time, even on appeal or motu proprio by the court.
- Penalty-prescription: after a light sentence becomes final, an accused who absconds for one full year without service may invoke prescription to quash arrest warrants.
- Document absence abroad—the prosecution bears the burden to show periods were tolled under Art. 91.
9. Conclusion
The two-month crime-prescription for light offenses is deliberately short, yet Philippine jurisprudence favors prosecution by broadly interpreting what interrupts the period (Olarte–Panaguiton line). Still, the technical defense of prescription remains potent—courts have not hesitated to dismiss informations filed even a day late. Prosecutors and private complainants must therefore move swiftly, ensure compliance with barangay conciliation when required, and vigilantly monitor dismissals. Conversely, defense counsel should always examine the timeline; in light offenses, a mere sixty-day oversight can be fatal to the State’s case.
This article consolidates the doctrinal texts and the principal Supreme Court rulings up to June 2024, providing a ready reference for bench, bar, and law students on the nuanced—but highly consequential—rules governing the prescription of light offenses in Philippine criminal law.