SECOND DIVISION
|
Petitioner, - versus - EUNG WON CHOI,
Respondent. |
G.R. No. 165496 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Petitioner,
In an Information[3]
dated P1,875,000 which was dishonored
for having been drawn against insufficient funds.
Upon arraignment, respondent, with
the assistance of counsel, pleaded “not guilty” to the offense charged. Following the pre-trial conference, the
prosecution presented its evidence-in-chief.
After the prosecution rested its
case, respondent filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence
to which he attached his Demurrer, asserting that the prosecution failed to
prove that he received the notice of dishonor, hence, the presumption of the
element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise.[4]
By Order[5] of
Petitioner appealed the civil aspect[7] of
the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
By Decision of P1,875,000 with legal interest.[8]
Upon respondent’s motion for
reconsideration, however, the RTC set aside its decision and ordered the remand
of the case to the MeTC “for further proceedings, so
that the defendant [-respondent herein] may adduce evidence on the civil aspect
of the case.”[9] Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of
the remand of the case having been denied, he elevated the case to the CA which,
by the assailed resolutions, dismissed his petition for the following reasons:
1. The verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the petition does not fully comply with Section 4, as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Court, because it does not give the assurance that the allegations of the petition are true and correct based on authentic records.
2. The petition is not accompanied by copies of certain pleadings and other material portions of the record, (i.e., motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, demurrer to evidence and the opposition thereto, and the Municipal [sic] Trial Court’s Order dismissing Criminal Case No. 294690) as would support the allegations of the petition (Sec. 2, Rule 42, ibid.).
3.
The Decision dated
4.
Petitioners failed to implead
the People of the
In his present petition, petitioner assails
the above-stated reasons of the appellate court in dismissing his petition.
The manner of verification for pleadings
which are required to be verified, such as a petition for review before the CA of
an appellate judgment of the RTC,[11] is
prescribed by Section 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court:
Sec. 4. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.[12] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Petitioner argues that the word “or”
is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence, hence, he chose
to affirm in his petition he filed before the court a quo that its contents are “true and correct of my own personal
knowledge,”[13] and not
on the basis of authentic documents.
On the other hand, respondent
counters that the word “or” may be interpreted in a conjunctive sense and
construed to mean as “and,” or vice versa, when the context of the law so warrants.
A reading of
the above-quoted Section 4 of Rule 7 indicates that a pleading may be verified
under either of the two given modes or under both. The veracity of the allegations in a pleading
may be affirmed based on either one’s own personal knowledge or on authentic
records, or both, as warranted. The use
of the preposition “or” connotes that either source qualifies as a sufficient
basis for verification and, needless to state, the concurrence of both sources
is more than sufficient.[14] Bearing both a disjunctive and conjunctive
sense, this parallel legal signification avoids a construction that will
exclude the combination of the alternatives or bar the efficacy of any one of
the alternatives standing alone.[15]
Contrary to
petitioner’s position, the range of permutation is not left to the pleader’s
liking, but is dependent on the surrounding nature of the allegations
which may warrant that a verification be based either purely on personal
knowledge, or entirely on authentic records, or on both sources.
As pointed out by respondent,
“authentic records” as a basis for verification bear significance in petitions
wherein the greater portions of the allegations are based on the records of the
proceedings in the court of origin and/or the court a quo, and not
solely on the personal knowledge of the petitioner. To illustrate, petitioner himself could not
have affirmed, based on his personal knowledge, the truthfulness of the
statement in his petition[16] before
the CA that at the pre-trial conference respondent admitted having received the
letter of demand, because he (petitioner) was not present during the conference.[17] Hence, petitioner needed to rely on the
records to confirm its veracity.
Verification is not an empty ritual
or a meaningless formality. Its import
must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what is at stake is the matter of verity
attested by the sanctity of an oath[18]
to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading have been made in
good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative.[19]
This Court has strictly been enforcing
the requirement of verification and certification and enunciating that
obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if fair results are
to be expected therefrom. Utter disregard of the rules cannot just be
rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[20] While the requirement is not jurisdictional
in nature, it does not make it less a rule.
A relaxed application of the rule can only be justified by the attending
circumstances of the case.[21]
To sustain petitioner’s explanation
that the basis of verification is a matter of simple preference would
trivialize the rationale and diminish the resoluteness of the rule. It would play on predilection and pay no heed
in providing enough assurance of the correctness of the allegations.
On the second reason of the CA in dismissing
the petition – that the petition was not accompanied by copies of certain
pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the
allegations of the petition (i.e., Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to
Evidence, Demurrer to Evidence and the Opposition thereto, and the MeTC February 27, 2003 Order dismissing the case) –
petitioner contends that these documents are immaterial to his appeal.
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, however,
the materiality of those documents is very apparent since the civil aspect of
the case, from which he is appealing, was likewise dismissed by the trial court
on account of the same Demurrer.
Petitioner, nonetheless, posits that
he subsequently submitted to the CA copies of the enumerated documents, save
for the MeTC
The Rules, however, require that the
petition must “be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or true
copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of
court.”[22]
A perusal of the petition filed
before the CA shows that the only duplicate original or certified true copies
attached as annexes thereto are the
While petitioner averred before the
CA in his Motion for Reconsideration that the February 27, 2003 MeTC Order was already attached to his petition as Annex “G,”
Annex “G” bares a replicate copy of a different order, however. It was to this Court that petitioner
belatedly submitted an uncertified true copy of the said MeTC
Order as an annex to his Reply to respondent’s Comment.
This Court in fact observes that the
copy of the other MeTC Order, that
dated
Since both Orders of the MeTC were adverse to him even with respect to the civil
aspect of the case, petitioner was mandated to submit them in the required form.[23]
In fine, petitioner fell short in his
compliance with Section 2 (d) of Rule 42, the mandatory tenor of which is
discernible thereunder and is well settled.[24] He has not, however, advanced any strong
compelling reasons to warrant a relaxation of the Rules, hence, his petition
before the CA was correctly dismissed.
Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.[25] (Emphasis supplied)
As to the third reason for the
appellate court’s dismissal of his petition – failure to implead
the People of the Philippines as a party in the petition – indeed, as
petitioner contends, the same is of no moment, he having appealed only the
civil aspect of the case. Passing on the
dual purpose of a criminal action, this Court ruled:
Unless
the offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute
it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action, there
are two actions involved in a criminal case. The first is the criminal action for the
punishment of the offender. The parties
are the People of the
It bears recalling that the MeTC acquitted respondent.[27] As a rule, a judgment of acquittal is
immediately final and executory and the prosecution
cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against
double jeopardy.
Either the offended party or the
accused may, however, appeal the civil aspect of the judgment
despite the acquittal of the accused. The
public prosecutor has generally no interest in appealing the civil aspect of a
decision acquitting the accused. The
acquittal ends his work. The case is
terminated as far as he is concerned. The
real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the offended
party and the accused.[28]
Technicality aside, the petition is
devoid of merit.
When a demurrer to evidence is filed without
leave of court, the whole case is submitted for judgment on the basis of
the evidence for the prosecution as the accused is deemed to have waived the
right to present evidence.[29] At that juncture, the court is called upon to
decide the case including its civil aspect, unless the enforcement of the civil
liability by a separate civil action has been waived or reserved.[30]
If the filing of a separate civil
action has not been reserved or priorly instituted or
the enforcement of civil liability is not waived, the trial court should, in
case of conviction, state the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful
act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if
there is any.[31]
For, in case of acquittal, the
accused may still be adjudged civilly liable.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction
of the civil action where (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as
only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the
liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the
accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused
was acquitted.[32]
The civil action based on delict may, however, be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission
from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.[33]
In case of a demurrer to evidence
filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce countervailing
evidence if the court denies the demurrer.[34] Such denial bears no distinction as to the two
aspects of the case because there is a disparity of evidentiary value between
the quanta of evidence in such aspects of the case. In other words, a court may not deny the
demurrer as to the criminal aspect and at the same time grant the demurrer as
to the civil aspect, for if the evidence so far presented is not insufficient
to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt, then the same evidence is likewise
not insufficient to establish civil liability by mere preponderance of
evidence.
On the other hand, if the evidence so
far presented is insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not
follow that the same evidence is insufficient to establish a preponderance of
evidence. For if the court grants the demurrer,
proceedings on the civil aspect of the case generally
proceeds. The only recognized
instance when an acquittal on demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the
civil aspect is when there is a finding that the act or omission from which the
civil liability may arise did not exist.
Absent such determination, trial as to the civil aspect of the case must
perforce continue. Thus
this Court, in Salazar v. People,[35]
held:
If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless the court also declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.[36]
In the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case without
any finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
did not exist.
Respondent did not assail the RTC
order of remand. He thereby recognized
that there is basis for a remand.
Indicatively, respondent stands by
his defense that he merely borrowed P1,500,000
with the remainder representing the interest, and that he already made a
partial payment of P1,590,000. Petitioner
counters, however, that the payments made by respondent pertained to other
transactions.[37] Given these conflicting claims which are
factual, a remand of the case would afford the fullest opportunity for the
parties to ventilate, and for the trial court to resolve the same.
Petitioner finally posits that
respondent waived his right to present evidence on the civil aspect of the case
(1) when the grant of the demurrer was reversed on appeal, citing Section 1 of
Rule 33,[38] and (2)
when respondent orally opposed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration pleading
that proceedings with respect to the civil aspect of
the case continue.
Petitioner’s
position is tenuous.
Petitioner’s citation of Section 1 of
Rule 33 is incorrect. Where a court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused, and
the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court
necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires it to
resolve.
One of the issues in a criminal case being
the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime, the governing law is
the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Rules of Civil Procedure which
pertains to a civil action arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise
to the suit.[39]
As for petitioner’s attribution of
waiver to respondent, it cannot be determined with certainty from the records
the nature of the alleged oral objections of respondent to petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration of the grant of the demurrer to evidence. Any waiver of the right to present evidence must
be positively demonstrated. Any ambiguity
in the voluntariness of the waiver is frowned upon,[40] hence,
courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against it.[41]
This Court therefore upholds
respondent’s right to present evidence as reserved by his filing of leave of
court to file the demurrer.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions, DENIED.
The case is REMANDED to the court of
origin,
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
The
appellate court found the verification in petitioner’s petition to have failed
to comply with the rules “because it does not give the assurance that the
allegations of the petition are true and correct based on authentic
records.” It appears that
. A verification
anchored on such flawed reasoning[42]
The appeal of the offended party from
the civil aspect shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgment or order
appealed from.[43]
[1] CA rollo, pp. 113-114, penned by Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, with the concurrence of Justice Marina L. Buzon and Justice Noel G. Tijam.
[2]
[3] Rollo, p. 86.
[4] Records, pp. 234-244, citing Ting v. Court of Appeals, 398 Phil. 481 (2000).
[5] Rollo, p. 245.
[6]
[7] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-1836. Petitioner amended the Notice of Appeal on
June 2, 2003, after the case had already been docketed, to point out that he is
appealing the order of dismissal only insofar as the civil aspect of the case
is concerned (vide records,
pp. 283, 288, 290, 422).
[8] Rollo, pp. 113-117.
[9]
[10]
[11] Rules of Court, Rule 42, Sec. 1.
[12] As amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10 SC (2000).
[13] Rollo,
p. 64.
[14] Vide Bautista v. Sandiganbayan,
387 Phil. 872, 881-882 (2000).
[15] Vide China Banking Corporation v. HDMF, 366 Phil. 913 (1999).
[16] Rollo, p. 53.
[17] Records, p. 69; TSN,
[18] Vide Grogun, Incorporation v. National Power Corp., 458 Phil. 217, 230-231 (2003) for a definition of “verification.”
[19] Clavecilla
v. Quitain, G.R. No. 147989,
[20]
[21] Cf. Shipside, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 404 Phil. 981 (2001).
[22] Rules of Court, Rule 42, Sec. 2 (d).
[23] Cf. Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 157 (1997), which ruled that a petitioner is not required to attach to the petition before the Court of Appeals a certified true copy– but only a true or plain copy– of the MeTC Decision since petitioner is not appealing therefrom as it was rendered in her favor.
[24] Atillo v.
[25] Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 780, 784 (1996).
[26] Salazar v.
People, 458 Phil. 504, 514
(2003).
[27] From the MeTC’s
order, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati
instituted a special civil action for certiorari with the
[28] Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 436 Phil. 641, 653 (2002).
[29] Rules of Court, Rule 119, Sec. 23
reads: Demurrer to Evidence.– After the
prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed
by the accused with or without leave of court.
If the court denies the demurrer to
evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his
defense. When the demurrer to evidence
is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present
evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the
prosecution.
The motion for leave of court to file
demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall be filed
within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its
case. The prosecution may oppose the
motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt.
If leave of court is granted, the accused
shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10)
days from notice. The prosecution may
oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its receipt.
The order denying the motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.
[30] In a criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, no reservation to file the civil action separately shall be allowed. See Rules of Court, Rule 111, Sec. 1, par. (b).
[31] See Rules of Court, Rule 120, Sec. 2.
[32] Sanchez v. Far East Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No. 155309, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 97.
[33] Vide Rules of Court, Rule 111, Sec. 2, last par.
[34] Supra note 29.
[35] 458 Phil. 504 (2003).
[36]
[37] Rollo, pp.
72-73.
[38] “After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.”
[39] Cruz v. Court of Appeals, supra note 28 at 654.
[40] Vide People v. Flores, 336 Phil. 58 (1997).
[41] Alonte
v. Savellano, Jr., 350 Phil. 700, 720 (1998).
[42] This
Court notes that petitioner never alluded to mere inadvertence or honest
mistake, but persisted on his erroneous view.
In his Reply dated
[43] Rules
of Court, Rule 122, Sec. 11, par. (b).