ANICETO RECEBIDO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 141931. December 4, 2000 Fc!"# On September 9, 1990, private respondent Caridad Dorol went to the house of her cousin, peoner Aniceto Recebido, to redeem her propert, propert, an a!ricultural a!ricultural land located at San "sidro, #acon, Sorso!on, which Caridad Dorol mort!a!ed to peoner someme in April of 19$%& 'eoner and Caridad Dorol did not e(ecute a document on the mort!a!e but Caridad Dorol instead !ave peoner a cop of the Deed of Sale dated )une 1*, 19+ e(ecuted in her favor favor b her father, father, )uan Dorol& 'eoner 'eoner refused refused to allow Caridad Caridad Dorol Dorol to redeem her propert on his claim that she had sold her propert to him in 19+9& Caridad Dorol maintained and insisted that the transacon between them involvin! her propert was a mort!a!e&
Caridad Dorol veri-ed from the O.ce of the Assessor in Sorso!on that there e(ists on its -le a Deed of Sale dated Au!ust 1, 19+9, alle!edl e(ecuted b Caridad Dorol in favor of peoner and that the propert was re!istered in the la/ers name& Aer comparison of the specimen si!natures of Caridad Dorol with that of the si!nature on the uesoned Deed of Sale, 2#" Document 3(aminer 4a!bo5as, found that the la/er si!nature was falsi-ed& 6hereaer, 6hereaer, Caridad Dorol -led her complaint a!ainst peoner Aniceto Recebido with the 2#"& 4r& 4a!bo5as report was approved b the Chief of the 7uesoned Documents Division and the Deput Director of 6echnical Services, both of the 2#"& 6he O.ce of the 'rovincial 'rosecutor of Sorso!on -led an informaon indicn! peoner for 8alsi-caon of 'ublic Document with the Re!ional 6rial Court, of Sorso!on, Sorso!on& 6he peoner contends contends that the land in ueson was mort!a!ed to him b )uan Dorol, the father of Caridad, on 8ebruar %, 19++ and was subseuentl sold to him on Au!ust 1, 19$ althou!h it was made to appear that the deed of sale was e(ecuted on Au!ust 1, 19+9& Aer trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a decision convicn! peoner of the crime char!ed& On appeal, the Court of Appeals a.rmed with modi-caon the decision of the trial court& 'eoner -led a moon for reconsideraon invo:in! the defense of prescripon of the crime hence would warrant the dismissal of the case& I""$e# ;hether or not the crime char!ed had alread prescribed at the me the informaon was -led< R$%&'(# No. ;hile the defense of prescripon of the crime was raised onl durin! the moon for reco recons nsid ider era aon on of the the deci decisi sion on of the the Cour Courtt of Appe Appeal als, s, ther there e was was no waiv waiver er of the the defense& =nder the Rules of Court, the failure of the accused to assert the !round of e(ncon of the o>ense, inter alia, in a moon to uash shall not be deemed a waiver of such !round& 6he reason is that b prescripon, the State or the 'eople loses the ri!ht to prosecute the crime or to demand the service of the penalt imposed& Accordin!l, prescripon, althou!h not invo:ed in the trial, ma, ma, as in this case, be invo:ed invo:ed on appeal& ?ence, the failure to raise this defense in the moon to uash the informaon does not !ive rise to the waiver of the peoner@accused to raise the same anme thereaer includin! durin! appeal&
2onetheless, we hold that the crime char!ed has not prescribed& 6he peoner is correct in stan! that whether or not the o>ense char!ed has alread prescribed when the informaon was -led would depend on the penalt imposable therefor, which in this case is prision correccional in its medium and ma(imum periods and a -ne of not more than %,000&00 pesos& =nder the Revised 'enal Code, said penalt is a correconal penalt in the same wa that the -ne imposed is cate!oried as correconal& #oth the penalt and -ne bein! correconal, the o>ense shall prescribe in ten ears& 6he issue that the peoner has missed, however, is the rec:onin! point of the prescripve period& 6he peoner is of the impression that the ten@ear prescripve period necessaril started at the me the crime was commi/ed& 6his is inaccurate& =nder Arcle 91 of the Revised 'enal Code, the period of prescripon shall commence to run from the da on which the crime is discovered b the o>ended part, the authories, or their a!ents, ( ( (& "n People v. Reyes, this Court has declared that re!istraon in public re!istr is a noce to the whole world& 6he record is construcve noce of its contents as well as all interests, le!al and euitable, included therein& All persons are char!ed with :nowled!e of what it contains& 6he prosecuon has established that private complainant Dorol did not sell the sub5ect land to the peoner@accused at anme and that someme in 19$ the private complainant mort!a!ed the a!ricultural land to peoner Recebido& "t was onl on September 9, 1990, when she went to peoner to redeem the land that she came to :now of the falsi-caon commi/ed b the peoner& On the other hand, peoner contends that the land in ueson was mort!a!ed to him b )uan Dorol, the father of private complainant, and was subseuentl sold to him on Au!ust 1, 19$& 6his Court notes that the private o>ended part had no actual :nowled!e of the falsi-caon prior to September 9, 1990& 4eanwhile, assumin! arguendo that the version of the peoner is believable, the alle!ed sale could not have been re!istered before 19$, the ear the alle!ed deed of sale was e(ecuted b the private complainant& Considerin! the fore!oin!, it is lo!ical and in consonance with human e(perience to infer that the crime commi/ed was not discovered, nor could have been discovered, b the o>ended part before 19$& 2either could construcve noce b re!istraon of the for!ed deed of sale, which is favorable to the peoner since the runnin! of the prescripve period of the crime shall have to be rec:oned earlier, have been done before 19$ as it is impossible for the peoner to have re!istered the deed of sale prior thereto& 3ven !rann! arguendo that the deed of sale was e(ecuted b the private complainant, delivered to the peoner@accused in Au!ust 1, 19$ and re!istered on the same da, the ten@ear prescripve period of the crime had not et elapsed at the me the informaon was -led in 1991& 6he inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the crime had not prescribed at the me of the -lin! of the informaon&
