Prescription of Falsification: When the Clock Starts Running Under Philippine Law

The Supreme Court's 2000 decision in Recebido v. People (G.R. No. 141931) clarifies a critical question in Philippine criminal law: when does the prescriptive period for falsification of a public document begin to run? The answer matters because it determines whether the State can still prosecute an offense years after the forged document was made.

The Facts of the Case

In 1985, Caridad Dorol mortgaged her agricultural land in Sorsogon to her cousin, Aniceto Recebido. The parties did not execute a written mortgage contract, but Dorol gave Recebido a copy of her 1973 Deed of Sale as proof of ownership.

In September 1990, Dorol went to Recebido to redeem her property. Recebido refused, claiming Dorol had sold him the land in 1979. Suspicious, Dorol checked records at the Office of the Assessor and discovered a Deed of Sale dated August 13, 1979, allegedly signed by her in favor of Recebido. The NBI's Questioned Documents Division examined the signature and found it was falsified.

The Provincial Prosecutor charged Recebido with Falsification of Public Document. The trial court convicted him, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Recebido appealed to the Supreme Court, raising three issues: prescription, the sufficiency of evidence, and the trial court's authority to order him to vacate the land.

The Prescription Issue

Recebido argued that the crime had prescribed because the falsified deed was dated 1979, and the information was filed only in 1991—more than ten years later.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Under the Revised Penal Code, falsification of a public document prescribes in ten years. But the critical question was the starting point.

The Revised Penal Code provides that the prescriptive period begins from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. The Court noted that Dorol only learned of the falsification on September 9, 1990, when she tried to redeem her property. Even assuming the deed was registered as early as 1983, the ten-year period had not elapsed when the information was filed in 1991.

The Court also rejected Recebido's argument that registration of the forged deed constituted constructive notice to Dorol. While registration is notice to the whole world, the Court found it significant that Dorol had no actual knowledge of the falsification before 1990, and the alleged sale could not have been registered before 1983 in any event.

The Evidence of Forgery

Recebido admitted the deed was forged but claimed there was no proof he authored it. The Court found this argument unavailing.

The forged deed was in Recebido's possession. He was the only person who stood to benefit from the falsification. Under the circumstances, the Court held that Recebido was presumed to be the author of the forged document, even without direct evidence of his authorship.

The Order to Vacate

Recebido also argued that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering him to vacate the land, since the charge was only for falsification. The Court rejected this argument.

Recebido claimed possession either under the forged deed or as mortgagee. The forged deed was void, and under Philippine law, a mortgagor—not the mortgagee—is entitled to possession of the property. Even if Recebido had a right to possess the land, his possession became unlawful when he unjustly refused Dorol's offer to redeem. As the Court stated, "Petitioner cannot profit from the effects of his crime."

Practical Takeaways

• Prescription starts on discovery, not commission. For offenses where discovery is not immediate, the prescriptive period under the Revised Penal Code begins when the offended party, authorities, or their agents discover the crime—not when it was committed.
• Possession of a forged document is strong evidence. A person found in possession of a falsified document who stands to benefit from it is presumed to be the author of the falsification.
• Forgery cannot be the basis of property rights. A forged deed of sale is void and cannot support a claim of ownership or possession.
• Mortgagors keep possession. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the mortgagor retains possession of the property in a contract of mortgage.
• Prescription can be raised on appeal. Under the Rules of Court, the defense of extinction of the offense is not waived by failure to raise it in a motion to quash.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.