People v Villalon Digest

CASE: People v. Hon. Felicidad Carandang Villalon and Federico De Guzman DATE: Dec. 21, 1991 PONENTE: Regalado, J. SUMMARY: De Guzman was charged with estafa thru falsification of public document on March 29, 1974. As the attorney-in-fact of Mariano Carrera (complainant), in 1964, De Guzman forged his signature on the special power of attorney (SPA) to use it to mortgage Carrera’s parel of land and obtain a loan from the mortgage bank. Both documents (Power of Atty. and mortgage contract) were later registered with the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan. The mortgage foreclosed, the land was bought by someone else, and Carrera only knew about it when an action for ejectment was filed against him by the new owner in 1972. The trial court dismissed the case against De Guzman on the grounds that the said crime, which was punishable by prision correcional, already prescribed, pursuant to Art. 90 of the RPC. The SC affirmed the challenged decision of the trial court, ruling that the crime prescribed upon the public registry of the power of attorney which is considered a notice to the whole world. FACTS: - Mariano and Severo Carrere were owners of a parcel of land in Pangasinan. - Feb. 5, 1964 – Carrera executed a SPA with De Guzman, naming him as his attorney-in-fact - Feb. 13, 1964 – De Guzman mortgaged Carrera’s property with the People’s Bank and Trust Co. using the SPA and got the P8,500 loan. - The mortgage foreclosed and the land was sold to Ramon Serafica and Vileta Quinto. Carrera discovered that his land belonged to someone else when the former filed an action for his ejectment. - A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendant, stating that: a) The crime charged would not lie because of complainant’s partial testimony. Mariano testified that it was his brother, Severo, who asked him to sign the SPA to authorize De Guzman to mortgage one half of their land. b) Since the most serious crime in the complex crime was estafa, the penalty of prision correctional will be imposed but because it is a correctional penalty, it has already prescribed. More than 10 years had passed from the commission of the crime, which became public knowledge upon its registry, to the filing of information. - Prosecution’s counter: a) Mariano’s testimony was intended to show that the authority to mortgage only extended up to the one half portion pertaining to his brother, not Mariano’s share. b) Information was not filed out of time since the date to be considered is January 1972 when Serafica filed the action for ejectment which was when the crime was discovered. It was not alleged because it was thought to be merely evidentiary. - Presiding Judge Castaneda of CFI of Pangasinan dismissed the case. People’s motion for recon denied by Villalon. - Special civil action for certiorari raised to the SC. ISSUES: 1. W/n the charge of estafa thru falsification of a public document has sufficient basis to exist in law and in fact COURT: YES. a) Falsification is only the means necessary to commit the estafa because before the falsified document is used to defraud another, the crime of falsification was already consummated. The damages were caused by the commission of estafa. b) The alleged authorization given to De Guzman to get a loan from the Bank only pertains to the half owned by Mariano’s brother. In his testimony, Mariano only quoted his brother. 2. W/n the crime has prescribed

COURT: YES. a) The start of the prescriptive period was when the falsified SPA was registed in the Registry of Deeds on Feb. 13, 1964. In a crime of falsification of public document, the prescriptive period commences from the time the offended party had constructive notice of the alleged forgery after the document was registered with the Register of Deeds. Citing People v. Reyes, the Court said that registration in a public registry is a notice to the whole world. The record is a constructive notice of its contents as well as all interests, legal and equitable, included therein. Also, in Armentia vs. Patriarca, et al., 17 in interpreting the phrase "from the discovery," it was held that the discovery must be reckoned to have taken place from the time the document was registered in the Register of Deeds and that this rule applies in criminal and civil cases. VERDICT: Petition dismissed.