Prescription may render falsification raps worthless

Dear PAO,
My mother has considered filing a case against my aunt, her sister, for falsifying a deed of donation. It started when my mother learned that the title to one of their uncle’s pieces of property is already under my aunt’s name. The Registrar of Deeds explained that the transfer was done in view of the deed of donation supposedly executed by their uncle in favor of my aunt.

Their uncle was never married, had no children and passed away only in 2012. My mother believes that such deed was falsified because her uncle never mentioned anything about it, and it is very unlikely that he will give his property to my aunt knowing that he has other nephews and nieces who are more in need. Do you think such case will prosper?

Please advise me on this matter. Thank you and more power.
Eddie

Dear Eddie,
Under Article 171 of our Revised Penal Code, the crime of falsification may only be committed through any of the following acts: (1) Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; (2) Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; (3) Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; (4) Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (5) Altering true dates; (6) Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; (7) Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy of a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or (8) Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.

If the crime of falsification is committed in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document by a private individual, the penalty to be imposed is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). (Article 172 [1], Ibid.)

In the situation that you have narrated, it is crucial for your mother to establish, by proof beyond reasonable doubt, that your aunt counterfeited or imitated the handwriting or signature of their uncle, or that she caused it to appear that their uncle participated in the execution of such deed of donation when their uncle did not actually participate, in order for a case for falsification to prosper. Without such valuable evidence, the complaint may simply be dismissed. Thus, your mother must be able to present the original or certified true copy of the deed of donation purportedly executed by her uncle, original specimen signatures and/or handwriting of her uncle, and such other documents that will substantiate the impossibility of improbability of the execution of such document.

Apart therefrom, it is essential for your mother to establish that such crime of falsification has not yet prescribed, for even if your mother has countless pieces of evidence to back up her allegations against your aunt, it may be rendered naught by reason of prescription.

Thus, your mother must institute the criminal complaint within ten (10) years from the execution thereof or from the time that the same was notarized. This is in view of the fact that the imposable penalty is a correctional penalty, and the crime will prescribe in ten (10) years. Note that such prescription commences to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and will be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. It will commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. (Articles 90 and 91, Id.)

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

Expert opinion needed to prove medical malpractice

Dear PAO,
My wife died in the hospital two days after she gave birth. I knew that there was something wrong because the cause of her death cannot be explained by the attending obstetrician-gynecologist, including the hospital staff from whom I asked for some explanations. I really want to sue them; however, I do not have proofs. Please guide me on what to do.
Dindo

Dear Dindo,
Most cases in medical malpractice or criminal negligence need the testimony of expert witness to prove that malpractice was committed. In Rosit vs Gestuvo (G.R. No. 210445, December 7, 2015), the Supreme Court clearly discussed the necessity of expert testimony to prove medical malpractice including its exemptions:

“To establish medical negligence, this court has held that an expert testimony is generally required to define the standard of behavior by which the court may determine whether the physician has properly performed the requisite duty toward the patient. This is so considering that the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of a patient is usually a matter of expert opinion.

Solidum v. People of the Philippines provides an exception. There, the court explained that where the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur is warranted, an expert testimony may be dispensed with in medical negligence cases:

Although generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in malpractice suits to prove that a physician has done a negligent act or that he has deviated from the standard medical procedure, when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed of by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. The reason is that the general rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies only to such matters clearly within the domain of medical science, and not to matters that are within the common knowledge of mankind which may be testified to by anyone familiar with the facts. x x x

Thus, courts of other jurisdictions have applied the doctrine in the following situations: leaving of a foreign object in the body of the patient after an operation, injuries sustained on a healthy part of the body which was not under, or in the area, of treatment, removal of the wrong part of the body when another part was intended, knocking out a tooth while a patient’s jaw was under anaesthetic for the removal of his tonsils, and loss of an eye while the patient plaintiff was under the influence of anaesthetic, during or following an operation for appendicitis, among others.

We have further held that resort to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as an exception to the requirement of an expert testimony in medical negligence cases may be availed of if the following essential requisites are satisfied: ( 1) the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged; and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured.”

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net