People v. Lim
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Shirley T. Lim, Mary T. Lim-Leon, and Jimmy T. Lim, siblings and officers of Pentel Merchandising Co., Inc. (Pentel), were accused of falsifying a Secretary's Certificate dated February 29, 2000, which contained Pentel Board Resolution 2000-001. This resolution purportedly authorized Jimmy to sell a parcel of land owned by Pentel. The alleged falsification involved making it appear that their deceased father, Quintin C. Lim, who died on September 16, 1996, had signed the Secretary's Certificate and participated in the board resolution dated February 25, 2000. This act enabled Jimmy to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale for the property to the Spouses Emerson and Doris Lee. Procedural History: The petitioners were charged with falsification of a public document before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. The MeTC found the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt but acquitted the Spouses Lee. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC's decision on appeal. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals (CA) also affirmed the RTC's ruling, with a modification in the penalty. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners, through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailed the decision of the Court of Appeals. They argued that the evidence presented did not prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the crime had prescribed. Specifically, they contended that the prosecution failed to establish their direct participation in the falsification and that the evidence relied upon was circumstantial. Furthermore, they raised for the first time before the Supreme Court the issue of prescription, arguing that the prescriptive period for the crime of falsification of a public document commenced from the registration of the falsified Secretary's Certificate on March 29, 2000, and had lapsed by the time the criminal information was filed.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime of falsification of a public document against the petitioners has prescribed. Whether the petitioners were correctly charged with falsification of a public document.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and ordered the dismissal of the criminal case against the petitioners on the ground that the crime had prescribed. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 22, 2016 and Resolution dated August 17, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 37336 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and Criminal Case No. 467715-CR against petitioners Shirley T. Lim, Mary T. Lim-Leon and Jimmy T. Lim is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription of the offense: The Court held that the crime of falsification of a public document charged against the petitioners had prescribed. The falsification was consummated through the execution of the Secretary's Certificate dated February 29, 2000, which was notarized and thus considered a public document. The Court reiterated the principle that for falsification of a public document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, the prescriptive period commences from the date of registration of the forged or falsified document, not from its discovery. This is because registration serves as constructive notice to the entire world. The Secretary's Certificate, along with the Deed of Absolute Sale, was registered on March 29, 2000, which was the operative act for the transfer of title and the reckoning point for prescription. The Court noted that the Affidavit of Complaint was executed on September 21, 2010, more than ten years after the registration date of March 29, 2000. Therefore, by March 29, 2010, the prescriptive period had already lapsed, approximately five months before the complaint was executed. Consequently, by the time the criminal Information was filed on May 15, 2012, the petitioners' criminal liability was already extinguished. On the issue of whether the petitioners were correctly charged with falsification of a public document: The Court found that the petitioners were correctly charged and convicted of falsification of a public document. The Information clearly stated that the subject of the falsification was the Secretary's Certificate dated February 29, 2000, which is a notarized document and thus a public document. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners conspired to falsify this document by making it appear that Quintin C. Lim, who was already deceased, participated in the board meeting and signed the resolution contained therein. The Court clarified that while a board resolution itself might be considered a private document, the Secretary's Certificate attesting to its passage and containing the signatures of the directors is a public document. The petitioners, particularly Shirley as Corporate Secretary, were responsible for certifying under oath that Quintin was present and participated, which was an untruthful statement in a narration of facts, constituting falsification of a public document under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court emphasized that the act of falsifying the Secretary's Certificate, which contained the forged signature of Quintin, was the main act of falsification committed.
Main Doctrine
The prescriptive period for the crime of falsification of a public document, punishable under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, commences from the date of registration of the forged or falsified document, as registration serves as constructive notice to the entire world.