Facts:

The case involves the People of the Philippines as the petitioner, and the Hon. Felicidad Carandang Villalon and Federico de Guzman as the respondents, decided on December 21, 1990, by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The history of the case begins with a parcel of land co-owned by Mariano Carrera and Severo Carrera in Barrio Buenlag, Binmaley, Pangasinan, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47682. On February 5, 1964, Mariano Carrera executed a special power of attorney before Notary Public Jaime B. Arzadon Jr., designating Federico de Guzman as his attorney-in-fact. Subsequently, on February 13, 1964, De Guzman mortgaged the property to the People's Bank and Trust Company to secure a loan of P8,500. The power of attorney and mortgage were registered the same day at the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan.

The mortgage was foreclosed after the loan was not repaid, and the property was sold to Ramon Serafica and Vileta Quinto, who obtained Transfer Certifica

...

Facts:

Co-ownership and Conveyance of Land

• Mariano Carrera and Severo Carrera were co-owners of a parcel of land located in Barrio Buenlag, Binmaley, Pangasinan, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47682.
• On February 5, 1964, Mariano Carrera allegedly executed a special power of attorney before Notary Public Jaime B. Arzadon, Jr., designating Federico de Guzman as his attorney-in-fact.

Mortgage Transaction and Registration

• On February 13, 1964, Federico de Guzman, acting under the said power of attorney, mortgaged the parcel of land with the People’s Bank and Trust Company in Dagupan City.
• The mortgage transaction, which secured a loan of P8,500.00, was officially documented through the registration of both the special power of attorney and the mortgage contract in the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan on the same day.

Foreclosure and Subsequent Ejectment Proceedings

• Following the expiration of the mortgage term and non-payment of the mortgage account, the bank foreclosed the mortgage, resulting in the sale of the land to Ramon Serafica and Vileta Quinto.
• Transfer Certificate of Title No. 85181 was issued to Ramon Serafica for the property.
• In January 1972, Mariano Carrera allegedly discovered that the property had been transferred to Ramon Serafica’s name when the latter initiated an ejectment suit against him.

Criminal Case for Estafa Through Falsification

• On March 29, 1974, Criminal Case No. D-868 was filed in the then Court of First Instance of Pangasinan charging Federico de Guzman with estafa thru falsification of a public document.
• The information alleged that on February 5, 1964, de Guzman, in possession of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47682, forged Mariano Carrera’s signature on a special power of attorney in order to mortgage the land and secure a P8,500.00 loan, thereby causing damages of P4,250.00 to the complainant.

Trial and Evidentiary Testimonies

• During trial, evidence was presented by Mariano Carrera, a witness from the Office of the Register of Deeds, and a handwriting expert (Col. Jose G. Fernandez), although the expert’s testimony was not fully developed due to procedural motions.
• On December 16, 1975, the defense moved to dismiss the case based on the partial testimony of Mariano Carrera indicating that he had allegedly authorized the mortgaging of only the one-half portion belonging to his brother, Severo Carrera.

Allegations of Prescription and Double Jeopardy

• Federico de Guzman contended that the crime was barred by prescription, asserting that more than ten (10) years had lapsed from the date of the alleged commission of the crime (February 5, 1964) until the filing of the information (March 29, 1974).
• The defense further argued that registration of the special power of attorney on February 13, 1964, constituted constructive notice, thereby prompting the commencement of the prescriptive period.
• The issue of double jeopardy was raised, with the defense asserting that an appeal from the dismissal order would result in double jeopardy.

Proceedings in Lower Courts and Appeal

• Judge Manuel Castaneda of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dismissed the criminal case on January 28, 1976, on grounds of prescription.
• A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner but was denied by Judge Felicidad Carandang Villalon.
• On March 25, 1976, the prosecution filed a notice of appeal from these orders, which eventually led to a petition for review on certiorari (special civil action) in accordance with Republic Act No. 5440.

Issue:

Double Jeopardy

• Whether the People, by appealing the order of dismissal, would be placing Federico de Guzman in double jeopardy.

Sufficiency of the Charge

• Whether the charge of estafa thru falsification of a public document is sufficiently supported by both the facts and the applicable law.
• Whether the alleged act of forgery, which allowed the securing of a bank loan, constitutes a basis for estafa, given that damage is not inherent in the falsification itself.

Prescription

• Whether the offense charged has been extinguished by prescription.
• Specifically, whether the prescriptive period should be computed from the actual commission of the crime or from the date when the document (the special power of attorney) was registered, which would serve as constructive notice to the public.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)