SHIRLEY T. LIM, MARY T. LIM­LEON AND JIMMY T. LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Lim versus People

The Case

This is a criminal case for falsification of a public document under Article 172, in relation to Article 171, of the Revised Penal Code. Shirley Lim, Mary Lim-Leon, and Jimmy Lim, siblings and officers of Pentel Merchandising Company, were accused of making it appear that their deceased father, Quintin Lim, participated in and signed a corporate board resolution and the secretary's certificate that embodied it. The case matters for two reasons: it fixes the line between a public document and a private one in corporate practice, and it confirms that the prescription of a crime may be raised at any stage, even for the first time on appeal — a defense that, once it ripens, extinguishes criminal liability altogether.

Procedural History

The criminal information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, which convicted the three petitioners of falsification of a public document and acquitted the Spouses Lee for failure of proof. The petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction in full. A motion for reconsideration was denied, so the petitioners went up to the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 42. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the petition outright for formal defects, later reconsidered that dismissal, and eventually denied the appeal, affirming the conviction but modifying the penalty in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Reconsideration was denied. The petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, raising their earlier arguments and, for the first time, the prescription of the offense.

Facts

Quintin Lim founded Pentel Merchandising Company and served as one of its directors. He died on September 16, 1996. More than three years later, on February 25, 2000, a board resolution numbered 2000-001 was purportedly passed, authorizing Jimmy Lim, the corporation's president, to dispose of a parcel of land in Pasay City registered in Pentel's name. The resolution was embodied in a secretary's certificate dated February 29, 2000, signed by the petitioners and bearing what appeared to be Quintin's signature.

Armed with that secretary's certificate, Jimmy Lim executed a deed of absolute sale on March 21, 2000, conveying the property to the Spouses Lee. The Registry of Deeds of Pasay City cancelled Pentel's title on March 29, 2000 and issued a new title in the name of the Spouses Lee.

A stockholder, Lucy Lim, filed a complaint in September 2010, alleging that the secretary's certificate was falsified because it made it appear that Quintin signed it although he had been dead for years. The information was filed in 2012. At trial, the prosecution presented Lucy, another sibling, and the records officer of the Registry of Deeds. The petitioners presented no evidence, believing the prosecution's case to be weak.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioners were correctly charged and convicted of falsification of a public document, rather than of a private document.
• Whether or not the petitioners may raise the prescription of the offense for the first time on appeal, despite not having moved to quash before arraignment.
• Whether or not the crime of falsification of a public document had already prescribed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: x x x x 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

This is the act of falsification that the petitioners, as private individuals, were found to have committed on a public document.

Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document.

This is the provision under which the petitioners were charged and convicted, and its penalty fixes the prescriptive period.

Section 19 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Section 19. Classes of Documents. - For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. Public documents are: x x x x (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and x x x x All other writings are private.

This is the test that makes the notarized secretary's certificate a public document, even though the board resolution it contains is not.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioners were correctly charged and convicted of falsifying a public document. The subject of the falsification was the notarized secretary's certificate dated February 29, 2000, which certified under oath that the board meeting took place with Quintin's participation and that the resolution was passed with his approval. While a board resolution is not a public document, the secretary's certificate squarely falls under Section 19(b) of Rule 132. Because the certificate contained both the resolution and the signatures of the approving directors, all the petitioners were shown to have participated in its execution. Quintin was indisputably dead when the resolution was supposedly passed, so the certification was an untruthful statement in a narration of facts.

On the second issue, the Court held that prescription may be raised even for the first time on appeal. The general rule is that the accused must object before entering a plea, but the Court carved out an exception for grounds involving the extinguishment of criminal liability, which includes prescription. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in People versus Castro:

As prescription of the crime is the loss by the State of the right to prosecute and punish the same, it is absolutely indisputable that from the moment the State has lost or waived such right, the defendant may, at any stage of the proceeding, demand and ask that the same be finally dismissed and he be acquitted from the complaint.

A procedural rule cannot defeat a substantive right, and prescription of a crime totally extinguishes criminal liability.

On the third issue, the Court held that the crime had indeed prescribed. The penalty for falsification of a public document is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine, which is a correctional penalty that prescribes in ten years. For falsification of a public document, the period commences on the date of registration of the forged or falsified document, because registration is constructive notice to the whole world. The secretary's certificate was registered on March 29, 2000, when the new title was issued to the Spouses Lee. The information was filed only in 2012, more than ten years later. The Court applied the rule most favorable to the accused.

Doctrine

First, a notarized secretary's certificate is a public document under Section 19(b) of Rule 132, even if the board resolution it recites is a private document. Falsifying it through an untruthful narration of facts is punishable under Article 172, in relation to Article 171, of the Revised Penal Code.

Second, the prescription of a crime may be raised at any stage of the proceeding, even for the first time on appeal, because it extinguishes criminal liability and is a substantive right that procedural rules cannot defeat.

Third, for falsification of a public document, the prescriptive period is reckoned from the date of registration of the falsified document, since registration is constructive notice to the whole world.

Disposition

The petition was partially granted: the Court set aside the conviction and dismissed the criminal case against the petitioners because the crime had already prescribed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: prescription of a crime may be raised at any stage, even for the first time on appeal, and for falsification of a public document it runs from the date of registration of the falsified document. Examiners use this case to test the public-private distinction in corporate documents and the belated defense of prescription.