Aniceto Recebido v. People of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private complainant Caridad Dorol sought to redeem her agricultural land from petitioner Aniceto Recebido, which she had mortgaged in April 1985. Petitioner refused, claiming Caridad had sold the property to him in 1979. Caridad discovered a Deed of Sale dated August 13, 1979, allegedly executed by her in favor of petitioner, which was registered and the property was in petitioner's name. An NBI Document Examiner found Caridad's signature on the Deed of Sale to be falsified. Procedural History: The Provincial Prosecutor filed an information for Falsification of Public Document against petitioner. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty, a fine, subsidiary imprisonment, and ordering him to pay damages and vacate the land. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification, deleting the award for damages. The Petition: Petitioner seeks reversal of the CA decision, raising issues of prescription, grave abuse of discretion in sustaining his conviction, and the propriety of the order to vacate the land.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the crime charged had already prescribed at the time the information was filed. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the conviction of the petitioner. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grievous error in affirming the decision of the trial court for the petitioner to vacate the land in question owned by the offended party.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in its Decision dated September 9, 1999, and its Resolution dated February 15, 2000.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Prescription of Crime: The Court held that the crime charged had not prescribed. While the defense of prescription was raised late, it was not waived as per the Rules of Court. The prescriptive period for falsification of public document, which carries a correctional penalty, is ten years. Crucially, the period commences from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party or authorities, not necessarily from the date of commission. The offended party, Caridad Dorol, only discovered the falsification on September 9, 1990, when she attempted to redeem her property. Even if the deed was executed and registered in 1983 as petitioner claimed, the ten-year prescriptive period would not have elapsed by the time the information was filed in 1991. Therefore, the crime had not prescribed. On Issue 2: Grave Abuse of Discretion in Conviction: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner admitted the deed of sale was forged but argued there was no proof he authored the falsification. However, the Court held that possession of the falsified deed of sale by the petitioner, who was the sole beneficiary, created a presumption that he was the material author of the falsification, dispensing with the need for direct proof of authorship. The Solicitor General's observation that petitioner submitted the document for examination further supported this conclusion. Thus, the conviction was sustained. On Issue 3: Propriety of Ordering Petitioner to Vacate: The Court affirmed the trial court's order for petitioner to vacate the land. Petitioner's claim to possession was based on either the forged deed of sale or his status as a mortgagee. The forged deed of sale could not be a valid basis for possession. Furthermore, in a mortgage, the mortgagor retains possession, not the mortgagee. Even if petitioner had a right to possess as a mortgagee, his possession became unlawful when he unjustly refused to allow redemption. The Court stated that petitioner could not profit from the effects of his crime, making the order to vacate proper.
Main Doctrine
The prescriptive period for falsification of public document commences from the discovery of the crime by the offended party or the authorities, not necessarily from the date of commission. Possession of a forged document, especially when the possessor is the sole beneficiary, creates a presumption of authorship of the falsification.