Case Summary (G.R. No. 53776)

Prescriptive Period for Falsification of Public Document

• The crime of falsification of public documents, as defined under Article 90 in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, prescribes in ten years when committed by a private individual.
• The prescriptive period begins from the date the crime is discovered by the offended party or authorities, as outlined in Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code.
• The running of the prescriptive period is interrupted by the filing of a complaint or information and resumes once the proceedings conclude without a conviction or acquittal.

Interruption of Prescription by Motion for Reconsideration

• The filing of a motion for reconsideration suspends the running of the prescriptive period, except in cases where double jeopardy is invoked.
• The prescriptive period resumes only after the court proceedings have been definitively concluded, meaning they are beyond reconsideration.

Requirements for Invoking Double Jeopardy

• To successfully invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the following requisites must be met:
  • A valid complaint or information sufficient to sustain a conviction.
  • A court of competent jurisdiction.
  • The accused must have pleaded to the charge.
  • The case must have been dismissed, acquitted, or otherwise terminated without the accused's consent.
  • The second offense must be the same as the first or an attempt or frustration thereof.

Waiver of Right Against Double Jeopardy

• A dismissal of a case with the express consent of the accused, such as through a motion to quash, generally waives the right against double jeopardy.
• This waiver is contingent upon two conditions: the dismissal must be sought by the defendant and must not be on the merits, which would imply an acquittal.

Facts of the Case

• An Information was filed against petitioner Caiza for falsification of public documents, with the alleged offense occurring on November 5, 1968.
• The first Information was quashed by the trial court on November 27, 1974, due to insufficient allegations.
• A second Information was filed on June 13, 1979, charging Caiza with a similar offense, prompting him to file a motion to quash based on prescription and other grounds.

Analysis of Prescription Claims

• The elapsed time between the commission of the alleged offense and the filing of the first Information was five years, four months, and sixteen days.
• The time between the denial of the motion for reconsideration and the filing of the second Information was four years, two months, and twelve days.
• The total time consumed before the second Information was filed was nine years, six months, and twenty-eight days, which is still within the ten-year prescriptive period.

Examination of Double Jeopardy Defense

• The trial court's dismissal of the first Information was with the express consent of Caiza, which waives his right to claim double jeopardy.
• The grounds for the motion to quash i...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 53776)

Case Information

• Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
• Division: Third Division
• G.R. No.: 53776
• Date: March 18, 1988
• Petitioner: Silvestre Caniza
• Respondents: People of the Philippines and Hon. Jaime Agloro, Presiding Judge, Branch XXIII, Court of First Instance of Manila

Nature of the Petition

• The petition is for Prohibition and Certiorari directed at two orders issued by Branch 23 of the then Court of First Instance of Manila:
  • An Order dated November 27, 1979, denying a Motion to Quash the second Information (Criminal Case No. 46768).
  • An Order dated March 20, 1980, denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Caniza.

Background of the Case

• On March 20, 1974, an Information was filed against Silvestre Caniza for falsification of public documents allegedly committed on November 5, 1968.
• May 24, 1974: Caniza filed a Motion to Quash, asserting that the allegations did not constitute an offense.
• November 27, 1974: The trial court granted Caniza's Motion to Quash, dismissing the case.
• The prosecution filed an undated Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on April 3, 1975.
• On June 13, 1979, a second Information was filed against Caniza with similar allegations, resulting in the current petition.

Issues Raised by the Petitioner

The petitioner raises three key issues for consideration:

• (a) Whether the offense charged has prescribed.
• (b) Whether the filing of the second...continue reading