Title
People vs. Reyes
Case
G.R. No. 74226-27
Decision Date
Jul 27, 1989
Heirs discovered falsified deed transferring property to Mizpah Reyes; crime prescribed as prescriptive period began at registration (1961), not discovery (1983).

Case Summary (G.R. No. 74226-27)

Facts of the Case

The registered deed of sale, claiming to be executed by Julio Rizare and Patricia Pampo, was recorded on May 26, 1961, transferring the property to Mizpah R. Reyes. The complainants discovered purported discrepancies regarding this document in June 1983 and subsequently initiated a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (N.B.I.) regarding the authenticity of their parents' signatures. The N.B.I. report indicated that while the signature of Julio Rizare was genuine, that of Patricia Pampo was forged.

Legal Proceedings

On October 18, 1984, the Regional Trial Court of Batangas, Branch XIII, Lipa City, received two criminal informations against Mizpah R. Reyes for falsification of public documents. The first case (Criminal Case No. V-1163) involved the forgery of Patricia Pampo's signature, and the second case (Criminal Case No. V-1164) pertained to an untruthful declaration about the accused's civil status.

Before the arraignment, Reyes filed a motion to quash the informations, arguing the prescription of the crimes and lack of jurisdiction due to non-compliance with pre-conciliation requirements. The trial court ruled in favor of Reyes, quashing the informations on grounds of prescription, stating the prescriptive period began with the registration of the document on May 26, 1961.

Court of Appeals Decision

Upon appeal by the People to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court upheld the trial court's order, emphasizing the established principle that registration of a public document serves as constructive notice. It determined that the ten-year prescriptive period commenced on the registration date rather than when the alleged forgery was discovered by the complainants.

Legal Principle on Prescription

The relevant legal provisions are drawn from the Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 172 concerning falsification of public documents, which prescribes a penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000. Article 90 outlines a ten-year prescriptive period for such offenses, beginning from the date of discovery of the crime, as per Article 91.

Application of Constructive Notice

The determination of prescription hinges on the acknowledgment that once the notarized deed of sale was recorded, it provided constructive notice of its contents to the public. Citing precedents, the Court underscored that individuals are presumed to have knowledge of the information contained within registered documents.

Impact of Decision on Criminal Liability

In this case, the Supreme Cou

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an analytical tool focused on understanding Philippine cases deeply, not a general AI assistant.