While jogging at a park, Manuel was mugged by two unknown individuals, who punched and kicked him. As a result, Manuel suffered injuries that required medical attention for 10 days. Investigators were not able to identify the ones responsible for the crime. Six years later, Manuel discovered from Gabriel, his former classmate, that siblings Lucio and Dencio, also their classmates, clandestinely mugged Manuel on account of their anger and left for the United States the day after. Gabriel came to know of this when he met up a week earlier with Lucio and Dencio, who just returned to the Philippines to stay here for good. Gabriel immediately informed Manuel about his discovery. Thus, charges for less serious physical injuries, punishable by arresto mayor, were filed against Lucio and Dencio, who now seek the dismissal of the case, arguing that prescription had already set in. For his part, Manuel contended that the prescriptive period only commenced to run recently when he came to know of the identities of his attackers. He further argued that Lucio and Dencio cannot claim the benefit of prescription since they were outside the Philippines, to which Lucio and Dencio respond by pointing out that the Philippines has an extradition treaty with the United States. As the trial judge, rule on the positions of Manuel and that of Lucio and Dencio.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
The motion to dismiss should be denied. While Manuel erroneously claims prescription runs from discovering the offenders' identities, he correctly argues that their absence from the country suspended the prescriptive period. Under Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code,
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
When does the prescriptive period for a crime begin to run under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code?
Under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription commences from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.
What is the legal effect on the prescription of a crime when the offender leaves the Philippines after committing the offense?
Under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the term of prescription of a crime does not run while the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
How does an extradition treaty between the Philippines and a foreign nation impact the rules on prescription under the Revised Penal Code?
The rule regarding extradition treaties applies to the prescription of penalties under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code, not to the prescription of crimes under Article 91.
Why was Manuel's argument that prescription only began upon discovering his attackers' identities legally flawed?
Choices available with full access.
Why should the trial judge deny Lucio and Dencio's motion to dismiss the charges of less serious physical injuries?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Commencement of Prescription
Under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the prescriptive period for a crime commences on the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. It is the discovery of the commission of the unlawful act itself, rather than the discovery of the identity of the specific perpetrator, that starts the running of the prescriptive period. Ignorance of who committed the crime does not delay the commencement of prescription, provided the existence of the offense has already been known to the victim or law enforcement.
2. Suspension of Prescription
Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code explicitly provides that the term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago. This tolling provision stops the clock on the state's period to prosecute whenever an accused leaves Philippine jurisdiction, regardless of the duration of the absence or whether the flight was intended to evade arrest. Consequently, time spent outside the country by an offender is excluded from the computation of the prescriptive period for the crime, preserving the state's right to initiate criminal proceedings upon their return.
3. Crimes Versus Penalties
A critical distinction exists between the prescription of crimes under Article 91 and the prescription of penalties under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code regarding foreign presence. While Article 93 specifies that going to a foreign country with an extradition treaty prevents the interruption of the prescriptive period for penalties, this rule applies exclusively to convicts evading a final sentence. For the prescription of crimes, Article 91 contains no such qualification; absence from the country suspends the prescriptive period for prosecuting the felony regardless of whether an extradition treaty exists.