Prescription Period for Robbery with Force upon Things in Philippine Criminal Law
1. Overview
“Prescription” (in Filipino practice often called prescription of the offense or prescription of the criminal action) is the lapse of a statutory period that bars the State from prosecuting an accused. For robbery with force upon things—the group of felonies found in Articles 299–303 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)—the length of that period depends on the penalty attached to the particular mode of robbery and the value of the property taken. A different, later-running period—prescription of the penalty under Articles 92–93—occurs after final judgment if the convicted person evades service of sentence. This article deals mainly with prescription of the crime.
2. Statutory Sources
| Topic | Governing Article(s) | Key Text (abridged) |
|---|---|---|
| Definition & penalties for robbery with force | Arts. 299–302 RPC (as amended by R.A. 10951, 2017) | Sets elements and graduated penalties. |
| Prescription of crimes | Art. 90 RPC | Lists prescriptive periods according to the penalty. |
| Computation & interruptions | Art. 91 RPC | Period begins on discovery of the crime and is interrupted by the filing of a complaint or information. |
| Prescription of penalties | Arts. 92–93 RPC | Runs from date the convict evades service and is suspended while he is abroad. |
3. Elements of Robbery with Force upon Things
- Personal property is taken.
- The taking is with intent to gain (animus lucrandi).
- The taking is without violence or intimidation against persons (otherwise it becomes robbery with violence under Art. 294).
- The offender employs force upon things (e.g., breaking a door, using picklocks, unbolting a safe).
4. Penalties After R.A. 10951 (2017)
R.A. 10951 updated the value brackets but did not alter the label of the penalties (reclusion temporal, prision mayor, etc.). Below is a simplified guide to the most common situations; consult the statute for full gradations:
| Mode & Circumstances | Usual Penalty* | Classification under Art. 25 | Prescriptive Period (Art. 90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 299: Inhabited house, public bldg., or vessel & value > ₱1,000,000 | Reclusion temporal max. to reclusion perpetua | Afflictive (≥ reclusion temporal) | 20 years |
| Art. 299: Same place, value > ₱60,000 but ≤ ₱1 M | Reclusion temporal min. to reclusion temporal med. | Afflictive | 20 years |
| Art. 299: Same place, value > ₱20,000 but ≤ ₱60,000 | Prision mayor | Other afflictive (but < reclusion temporal) | 15 years |
| Art. 299/302: Value ≤ ₱20,000 (or certain lesser aggravations) | Prision correccional | Correctional | 10 years |
| Art. 303: Possession of picklocks (unless locksmith) | Arresto mayor | Light correctional | 5 years |
*Extraordinary aggravating or mitigating circumstances, subsidiary imprisonment, or special laws (e.g., Dangerous Drugs Act) may alter the basic penalty and therefore the prescriptive period.
5. How to Compute Prescription of the Offense (Art. 91)
Starting point: Day on which the offense is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents—not necessarily the date of commission.
Interruption:
- Filing of a complaint or information for purposes of preliminary investigation—even in the wrong court—interrupts the period (People v. Olarte, 1965; People v. Dizon, 2021).
- The period runs again if the proceedings end without conviction or acquittal or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to the accused.
Suspension: Time during which the offender is absent from the Philippines does not count (last paragraph, Art. 91).
Continuing or complex crimes: The whole series is treated as one offense, so prescription starts on final act or discovery, whichever is later.
Practical Illustration
Scenario: A vault is broken (robbery with force) on 10 January 2020, but the loss is discovered only on 10 March 2020. The value taken is ₱2 million, so the penalty is reclusion temporal—prescriptive period 20 years.
Computation: Period begins 10 March 2020. If an information is filed on 1 June 2025, only 5 years, 2 months, 22 days have run—well within 20 years—hence prosecution is timely.
6. Prescription of the Penalty (Arts. 92-93)
Once sentence is final and the convict does not report or escapes, a second prescriptive clock begins:
| Original Penalty Imposed | Prescriptive Period for the Penalty | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Death, reclusion perpetua, or reclusion temporal | 20 years | Convict given 17 yrs. escapes in 2025; if not rearrested by 2045 the State can no longer enforce sentence. |
| Other afflictive penalties (prision mayor, etc.) | 15 years | |
| Correctional penalties (prision correccional, arresto mayor) | 10 years | |
| Light penalties (arresto menor) | 1 year |
The running is suspended while the convict is outside Philippine territory.
7. Raising Prescription as a Defense
Prescription is an affirmative defense; the accused should plead and prove it—usually via a motion to quash (Rule 117, Sec. 3(g) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure) or during trial. Courts may, however, dismiss motu proprio when the bar is obvious on the face of the information (People v. Sandiganbayan, 2003).
8. Effect of R.A. 10951 on Acts Committed Before 16 August 2017
Under the doctrine of favorabilia sunt amplianda (penal laws with lower penalties apply retroactively when favorable), an offense committed in 2016 but charged in 2024 might now fall into a lower penalty bracket post-10951, thereby shortening the prescriptive period. Conversely, if prescription had already completely run under the old law before 17 August 2017, the State cannot revive it.
9. Key Take-aways
- Identify the exact penalty—value of the loot and qualifying circumstances matter.
- Apply Art. 90 categories: 20-15-10-5 years.
- Count from discovery, not commission; stop-and-go with filings and absences.
- Distinguish prescription of the crime (bars prosecution) from prescription of the penalty (bars service of sentence).
- R.A. 10951 may shorten the period for pre-2017 robberies because of lowered penalties.
This article is for informational purposes and does not substitute for individualized legal advice. When time limits are close, exact dates and procedural history must be reviewed in detail by counsel.