Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23625)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Mariano Terrado, et al., G.R. Nos. L-23625, L-23626, L-23627, November 25, 1983, Supreme Court Second Division, Concepcion, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The appellant was The People of the Philippines; the respondents were Mariano Terrado, Remedios Gundran, Gertrudes Obo (applicants for free patents), and co-defendants Pedro Terrado (private land surveyor), Casimiro Flores (public land inspector, Bureau of Lands), and Bruno Gundran (District Land Officer, Bureau of Lands). The defendants applied for and were issued free patents in November 1951 and May 1952 for contiguous parcels in Barrio Paculago, Ragay, Camarines Sur (Lots 7, 8 and 9 of Plan Psu-125902), each exceeding 23 hectares.
Alleging that the parcels were forest land and not disposable, the People filed three separate informations on March 13, 1962 in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur: Criminal Case Nos. 7613 (against Mariano Terrado et al.), 7614 (against Remedios Gundran et al.), and 7615 (against Gertrudes Obo et al.), charging falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for conspiring to prepare and submit false applications, notices of application, final inspection reports, and first indorsements to procure free patents. The informations also alleged that Flores and Bruno Gundran abused official position in making untruthful statements.
Before arraignment the defendants filed motions to quash on the ground that the facts did not constitute falsification of public documents and, alternatively, that the offenses had prescribed. On April 15, 1963 the Court of First Instance dismissed the three informations, concluding the acts were either perjury under Section 129 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (punishable under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code) or offenses under Section 2751 of the Revised Administrative Code, and that the prosecutions had prescribed.
The People appealed to the Supreme Court from th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the informations charge falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, or do the facts instead fall within perjury under Section 129 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (with attendant consequences for characterization of the offense)?
- Have the criminal actions prescribed under the applicable prescriptive statute(s), and if so, which prescriptive period governs (the general rule under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code or the prescriptive...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)