G.R. No. L-23625 - People vs. Terrado

In November 1951 and May 1952, Gertrudes Obo, Remedios Gundran, and Mariano Terrado applied for, and were issued, free patents for contiguous parcels of land in Barrio Paculago, Ragay, Camarines Sur.
The parcels, comprising more than 23 hectares each (identified as Lots 7, 8, and 9 of Plan Psu-125902), were allegedly classified as forest land and hence non-disposable under existing laws.

The informations charged the accused, namely Mariano Terrado, Remedios Gundran, and Gertrudes Obo, together with Pedro Terrado (a licensed private land surveyor), Casimiro Flores (a public land inspector of the Bureau of Lands), and Bruno Gundran (District Land Officer of District No. 10 of the Bureau of Lands), with criminal offenses.
It was alleged that they conspired, confederated, and cooperated in falsifying public documents by making false and fraudulent misrepresentations. This included altering or preparing applications for free patents, notices of application, final inspection reports, and first endorsements with the intent to deceive the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources regarding the compliance with legal requirements.

The accused were charged for falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, and some representations also fell under perjury as defined by Section 129 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.
The lower court (Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur) dismissed the cases (Criminal Case Nos. 7613, 7614, and 7615) on the ground that the alleged crimes had already prescribed.
The specific factual timeline shows that the offenses were committed between November 16, 1951 and August 18, 1952, but the informations were only filed on March 13, 1962, thereby raising questions about the applicable prescriptive periods.

Falsification of public documents, if treated strictly as provided under Article 171, is punishable by prision mayor (an afflictive penalty) and a fine, prescribing in 15 years.
Alternatively, if the acts are categorized as perjury under Section 129 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the offense is punishable by correctional penalties (from arresto mayor to prision correccional) and prescribes in ten years.
Public Act No. 3326, as amended, prescribes an eight-year prescriptive period for offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one month but less than two years, adding yet another layer of complexity in determining the proper period for prescription.

Whether the criminal acts committed should be classified as falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code or as perjury under Section 129 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.
The determination of the proper statutory framework by which the accused’s acts should be charged and punished.

Whether the offenses, as alleged, have already prescribed based on the period between the alleged commission of the acts (ranging from November 1951 to August 1952) and the filing of the informations on March 13, 1962.
Which prescriptive period is applicable: the ten-year period for perjury, the eight-year period under Public Act No. 3326 (as amended), or the 15-year period for falsification of public documents when treated as an afflictive crime.

Whether the application of a particular prescriptive period serves the rule of leniency (i.e., liberally in favor of the accused) given the strictness with which penal statutes are applied against the government.