G.R. No. L-69537 June 20, 1986
TAHILRAM JASHANMAL BALANI, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, JUDGE AUGUSTO AMORES, Pair Judge of Branch XXIII of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tahilram Jashanmal Balani was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila with violating the Anti-Alias Law ( C.A. No. 142 , as amended) for allegedly using the name “Tahilram J. Balani” instead of his registered name “Tahilram Jashanmal” in public documents on or about July 17, 1961, and subsequent thereto. The Information was filed on March 13, 1984. Before arraignment, Balani moved to quash the Information, arguing, among other grounds, that the facts charged did not constitute an offense and that the crime had prescribed.
The presiding judge, Judge Agustin C. Bagasao, granted the motion to quash on April 25, 1984. However, upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the private prosecutor, the pair judge, Judge Augusto Amores, reversed the dismissal order after Judge Bagasao’s retirement. Balani challenged this order before the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which dismissed his petition. The IAC agreed with the prosecution that the offense was of a continuing nature, and thus the prescriptive period would only start from the last alleged illegal use of the alias.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the criminal charge against the petitioner for violation of the Anti-Alias Law has prescribed.

RULING

Yes, the offense has prescribed. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the IAC and Judge Amores, reinstating the original dismissal order of Judge Bagasao. The legal logic proceeds from the application of the law on prescription for special penal laws. The penalty for violating the Anti-Alias Law is imprisonment of one to five years and a fine. Under Act No. 3326 , as amended, which governs the prescription of offenses punished by special laws, the prescriptive period for such an offense is eight years.
The Information was filed on March 13, 1984, but it alleged the offense was committed “on or about July 17, 1961, and subsequent thereto.” This is a gap of over twenty-three years from the initial alleged act. The Court rejected the prosecution’s and the IAC’s theory of a “continuing offense” where prescription would run from the last illegal act. Crucially, the Court found that the petitioner’s use of the name “Tahilram J. Balani” was not illicit or concealed. Public records, including his Alien Certificate of Registration and Immigration Certificate of Registration from as early as 1949, showed he had publicly used that name for decades. Furthermore, a Resolution from the Commission on Immigration and Deportation in 1983 recognized “Tahilram Jashanmal Balani” and “Tahilram J. Balani” as one and the same person, indicating official recognition of the name’s use.
Since the alleged violation was open and a matter of public record, the State could not claim ignorance to evade the statute of limitations. The prescriptive period of eight years had long lapsed by the time the Information was filed in 1984. Therefore, the criminal liability was extinguished by prescription.