Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST
DIVISION
FELIXBERTO A.
ABELLANA, Petitioner, |
|
G.R. No. 174654 |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, |
PEOPLE OF THE and Spouses SAAPIA B. ALONTO and DIAGA ALONTO, Respondents. |
|
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: August 17, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
The only issue that confronts this Court is whether
petitioner Felixberto A. Abellana could still be held civilly liable notwithstanding
his acquittal.
Assailed before this Court are the February 22, 2006
Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 78644 and its August 15, 2006
Resolution[2]
denying the motion for reconsideration thereto.
The assailed CA Decision set aside the May 21, 2003 Decision[3]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Factual Antecedents
In 1985, petitioner extended a loan to private
respondents spouses Diaga and Saapia Alonto (spouses Alonto),[6]
secured by a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over Lot Nos. 6471 and 6472 located
in
On August 12, 1999,[9]
an Information[10] was
filed charging petitioner with Estafa through Falsification of Public Document,
the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 9th day of July, 1987, in
the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, and with intent to defraud, did then and there falsify a public
document consisting of a Deed of
Absolute Sale of a parcel of land consisting of 803 square meters executed
before Notary Public Gines N. Abellana per Doc. No. 383, Page No. 77, Book No.
XXIII, Series of 1987 of the latters Notarial Register showing that spouses
Saapia B. Alonto and Diaga Alonto sold their parcel of land located at Pardo,
Cebu City, for a consideration of P130,000.00 in favor of accused by
imitating, counterfeiting, signing or [causing] to be imitated or counterfeited
the signature[s] of spouses Saapia B. Alonto and Diaga Alonto above their
typewritten names in said document as vendor[s], when in truth and in fact as
the accused very well knew that spouses Saapia B. Alonto and Diaga Alonto did
not sell their aforestated descri[b]ed property and that the signature[s]
appearing in said document are not their signature[s], thus causing it to
appear that spouses Saapia B. Alonto and Diaga Alonto participated in the
execution of said document when they did not so participate[. Once] said
document was falsified, accused did then and there cause the transfer of the
titles of said land to his name using the said falsified document, to the
damage and prejudice of spouses Saapia B. Alonto and Diaga Alonto in the amount
of P130,000.00, the value of the land .
CONTRARY TO LAW.[11]
During
arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.[12] After the termination of the pre-trial
conference, trial ensued.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its
Decision dated May 21, 2003, the RTC noted that the main issue for resolution
was whether petitioner committed the crime of estafa through falsification of
public document.[13] Based
on the evidence presented by both parties, the trial court found that
petitioner did not intend to defraud the spouses Alonto; that after the latter
failed to pay their obligation, petitioner prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale
which the spouses Alonto actually signed; but that the Deed of Absolute Sale
was notarized without the spouses Alonto personally appearing before the notary
public. From these, the trial court
concluded that petitioner can only be held guilty of Falsification of a Public Document
by a private individual under Article 172(1)[14]
in relation to Article 171(2)[15]
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and not estafa through falsification of public
document as charged in the Information.
The
dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Felixberto
Abellana GUILTY of the crime of falsification of public document by private
individuals under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences him to an
indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS
and FOUR (4) MONTHS of Prision Correccional, as minimum, to SIX (6)YEARS, as
maximum.
He is directed to
institute reconveyance proceedings to restore ownership and possession of the
real properties in question in favor of private complainants. After private complainants shall have
acquired full ownership and possession of the aforementioned properties, they
are directed to pay the accused the sum of P130,000.00 [with] legal
interest thereon reckoned from the time this case was instituted.
Should the accused
fail to restore full ownership and possession in favor of the private complainants
[of] the real properties in question within a period of six (6) months from the
time this decision becomes final and executory, he is directed to pay said
complainants the sum of P1,103,000.00 representing the total value of
the properties of the private complainants.
He is likewise
directed to pay private complainants the following:
1. P15,000.00 for nominal damages;
2. P20,000.00 for attorneys fees;
3. P50,000.00 as and for litigation
expenses;
4. P30,000.00 as and for exemplary
damages;
plus the cost of this suit.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On
appeal, petitioner raised the issue of whether an accused who was acquitted of
the crime charged may nevertheless be convicted of another crime or offense not
specifically charged and alleged and which is not necessarily included in the
crime or offense charged. The CA, in its
Decision dated February 22, 2006, ruled in the negative.[17] It held that petitioner who was charged with
and arraigned for estafa through falsification of public document under Article
171(1) of the RPC could not be convicted of Falsification of Public Document by
a Private Individual under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171(2). The CA observed that the falsification
committed in Article 171(1) requires the counterfeiting of any handwriting,
signature or rubric while the falsification in Article 171(2) occurs when the
offender caused it to appear in a document that a person participated in an act
or proceeding when in fact such person did not so participate. Thus, the CA opined that the conviction of the
petitioner for an offense not alleged in the Information or one not necessarily
included in the offense charged violated his constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[18] Nonetheless, the CA affirmed the trial
courts finding with respect to petitioners civil liability. The dispositive portion of the CAs February
22, 2006 Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, We resolve to set aside the Decision dated May
21, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch
13,
SO ORDERED.[19]
Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration which was denied in the Resolution dated August 15,
2006.
Hence, petitioner
comes before us through the present Petition for Review on Certiorari raising the lone issue of whether he could still be held
civilly liable notwithstanding his acquittal by the trial court and the CA.
Our Ruling
The
petition is meritorious.
It is an
established rule in criminal procedure that a judgment of acquittal shall state
whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of
the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[20] In either case, the judgment shall determine
if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.[21] When the exoneration is merely due to the
failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court
should award the civil liability in favor of the offended party in the same
criminal action.[22] In other words, the extinction of the penal
action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from
which the civil [liability] might arise did not exist.[23]
Here,
the CA set aside the trial courts Decision because it convicted petitioner of an
offense different from or not included in the crime charged in the Information. To recall, petitioner was charged with estafa
through falsification of public document.
However, the RTC found that the spouses Alonto actually signed the
document although they did not personally appear before the notary public for
its notarization. Hence, the RTC instead convicted petitioner of falsification
of public document. On appeal, the CA held that petitioners conviction cannot
be sustained because it infringed on his right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him.[24]
The CA, however, found no reversible
error on the civil liability of petitioner as determined by the trial court and
thus sustained the same.[25]
We do not agree.
In Banal v. Tadeo, Jr.,[26]
we elucidated on the civil liability of the accused despite his exoneration in
this wise:
While an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law,
it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because
it caused damage to another. Viewing
things pragmatically, we can readily see that what gives rise to the civil
liability is really the obligation and moral duty of everyone to repair or make
whole the damage caused to another by reason of his own act or omission, done
intentionally or negligently, whether or not the same be punishable by law. x x
x
Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason
of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, causes damage to
another. Hence, for petitioner to be
civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the acts he committed
had caused damage to the spouses.
Based on the records of the case, we find that the acts
allegedly committed by the petitioner did not cause any damage to spouses
Alonto.
First, the Information charged petitioner with
fraudulently making it appear that the spouses Alonto affixed their signatures
in the Deed of Absolute Sale thereby facilitating the transfer of the subject
properties in his favor. However, after
the presentation of the parties respective evidence, the trial court found
that the charge was without basis as the spouses Alonto indeed signed the document
and that their signatures were genuine and not forged.
Second, even assuming that the spouses Alonto did not personally
appear before the notary public for the notarization of the Deed of Absolute
Sale, the same does not necessarily nullify or render void ab initio the
parties transaction.[27]
Such non-appearance is not sufficient to
overcome the presumption of the truthfulness of the statements contained in the
deed. To overcome the presumption, there must be sufficient, clear and
convincing evidence as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to the falsity
of the [deed]. In the absence of such
proof, the deed must be upheld.[28] And since the defective notarization does not
ipso facto invalidate the Deed of Absolute Sale, the transfer of said
properties from spouses Alonto to petitioner remains valid. Hence, when on the basis of said Deed of Absolute
Sale, petitioner caused the cancellation of spouses Alontos title and the
issuance of new ones under his name, and thereafter sold the same to third
persons, no damage resulted to the spouses Alonto.
Moreover,
we cannot sustain the alternative sentence imposed upon the petitioner, to wit:
to institute an action for the recovery of the properties of spouses Alonto or to
pay them actual and other kinds of damages.
First, it has absolutely no basis in view of the trial courts finding
that the signatures of the spouses Alonto in the Deed of Absolute Sale are
genuine and not forged. Second, [s]entences
should not be in the alternative. There
is nothing in the law which permits courts to impose sentences in the
alternative.[29] While a judge has the discretion of imposing
one or another penalty, he cannot impose both in the alternative.[30] He must fix positively and with certainty
the particular penalty.[31]
In view
of the above discussion, there is therefore absolutely no basis for the trial
court and the CA to hold petitioner civilly liable to restore ownership and
possession of the subject properties to the spouses Alonto or to pay them P1,103,000.00
representing the value of the properties and to pay them nominal damages,
exemplary damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The February 22, 2006 Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78644 and its August 15, 2006 Resolution are AFFIRMED insofar as they set aside the
conviction of the petitioner for the crime of falsification of public
document. The portion which affirmed the
imposition of civil liabilities on the petitioner, i.e., the restoration of ownership and possession, the payment of P1,103,000.00
representing the value of the property, and the payment of nominal and
exemplary damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses, is deleted
for lack of factual and legal basis.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] CA rollo, pp. 176-184; penned by Associate
Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices
Arsenio J. Magpale and Vicente L. Yap.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] ART.
172. Falsification by private individuals
and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 [pesos] shall
be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any
of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article [Article 171] in
any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of
commercial document; and
x x x x
[15] ART.
171. Falsification by public officer,
employee; or notary or ecclesiastical minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed
5,000 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
2. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
x x x
x
[16] CA rollo, p. 41.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Herrera, Oscar M., Remedial Law,
Volume IV, 2001 Ed., p. 178.
[21]
[22]
[23] Calalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. No. 74613, February 27, 1991, 194 SCRA 514, 523-524.
[24] CA rollo,
p. 183.
[25]
[26] 240
Phil. 326, 331 (1987).
[27] St. Marys Farm, Inc. v. Prima Real
Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 158144, July 31, 2008, 560 SCRA 704, 713.
[28]
[29] United States v. Chong Ting and Ha Kang,
23 Phil. 120, 124 (1912).
[30]
[31]