G.R.No.174654. August17,2011.

FELIXBERTO A. ABELLANA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and Spouses SAAPIA B.
ALONTOandDIAGAALONTO,respondents.

Criminal Procedure Judgments It is an established rule in criminal procedure that a judgment of acquittal shall state
whethertheevidenceoftheprosecutionabsolutelyfailedtoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedormerelyfailedtoprovehisguilt
beyondreasonabledoubt.Ineithercase,thejudgmentshalldetermineiftheactoromissionfromwhichthecivilliabilitymight
arisedidnotexist.Itisanestablishedruleincriminalprocedurethatajudgmentofacquittalshallstatewhethertheevidence
oftheprosecutionabsolutelyfailedtoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedormerelyfailedtoprovehisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Ineithercase,thejudgmentshalldetermineiftheactoromissionfromwhichthecivilliabilitymightarisedidnotexist.When
theexonerationismerelyduetothefailuretoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt,thecourtshouldaward
thecivilliabilityinfavoroftheoffendedpartyinthesamecriminalaction.Inotherwords,theextinctionofthepenalaction
doesnotcarrywithittheextinctionofcivilliabilityunlesstheextinctionproceedsfromadeclarationinafinaljudgmentthatthe
factfromwhichthecivil[liability]mightarisedidnotexist.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.

_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.

684

684 SUPREMECOURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Abellanavs.People

BenjaminR.Militarforpetitioner.
AbelardoC.Almarioforprivaterespondents.
CasanB.Macabandingcollaboratingcounselforprivaterespondents.

DELCASTILLO, J.:
TheonlyissuethatconfrontsthisCourtiswhetherpetitionerFelixbertoA.Abellanacouldstillbeheldcivillyliable
notwithstandinghisacquittal.
AssailedbeforethisCourtaretheFebruary22,2006Decision1oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.
78644anditsAugust15,2006Resolution2denyingthemotionforreconsiderationthereto.TheassailedCADecision
setasidetheMay21,2003Decision3oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofCebuCity,Branch13,inCriminalCaseNo.
CBU51385andacquittedthepetitionerofthecrimeoffalsificationofpublicdocumentbyaprivateindividualbecause
theInformationchargedhimwithadifferentoffensewhichisestafathroughfalsificationofapublicdocument.4However,
theCAstilladjudgedhimcivillyliable.5
FactualAntecedents
In 1985, petitioner extended a loan to private respondents spouses Diaga and Saapia Alonto (spouses
Alonto),6securedbyaDeedofRealEstateMortgageoverLotNos.6471and
 _______________
1CARollo,pp.176184pennedbyAssociateJusticeApolinarioD.Bruselas,Jr.andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesArsenioJ.
MagpaleandVicenteL.Yap.
2Id.,atp.238.
3Id.,atpp.3041pennedbyJudgeMeinradoP.Paredes.
4Id.,atp.180.
5Id.,atp.184.
6Id.,atp.33.

685

VOL.655,AUGUST 685
17,2011
Abellanavs.People

6472locatedinCebuCity.7Subsequently,orin1987,petitionerpreparedaDeedofAbsoluteSaleconveyingsaidlots
tohim.TheDeedofAbsoluteSalewassignedbyspousesAlontoinManila.However,itwasnotarizedinCebuCity
allegedlywithoutthespousesAlontoappearingbeforethenotarypublic.8Thereafter,petitioner causedthe transferof
thetitlestohisnameandsoldthelotstothirdpersons.
On August 12, 1999,9 an Information10 was filed charging petitioner with Estafa through Falsification of Public
Document,theaccusatoryportionofwhichreads:

Thatonoraboutthe9thdayofJuly,1987,intheCityofCebu,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
Court,thesaidaccused,withdeliberateintent,andwithintenttodefraud,didthenandtherefalsifyapublicdocumentconsisting
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]ofspousesSaapiaB.AlontoandDiagaAlontoabovetheirtypewrittennamesinsaiddocumentasvendor[s],when
intruthandinfactastheaccusedverywellknewthatspousesSaapiaB.AlontoandDiagaAlontodidnotselltheiraforestated
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]saiddocumentwasfalsified,accuseddidthenandtherecausethetransferofthetitlesofsaidlandtohis
name using the said falsified document, to the damage and prejudice of spouses Saapia B. Alonto and Diaga Alonto in the
amountofP130,000.00,thevalueoftheland.

_______________
7Id.
8Id.
9Id.,atp .6.
10Id.,atp p .4243.

686

686 SUPREMECOURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
 Abellanavs.People

CONTRARYTOLAW.11

Duringarraignment,petitionerenteredapleaofnotguilty.12Aftertheterminationofthepretrialconference,trial
ensued.
RulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt
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,thetrialcourtfoundthatpetitionerdidnotintendtodefraudthespousesAlontothatafterthelatterfailedtopay
their obligation, petitioner prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale which the spouses Alonto actually signed but that the
DeedofAbsoluteSalewasnotarizedwithoutthespousesAlontopersonallyappearingbeforethenotarypublic.From
these,thetrialcourtconcludedthatpetitionercanonlybeheldguiltyofFalsificationofaPublicDocumentbyaprivate
individualunderArticle172(1)14inrelationtoArticle171(2)15oftheRevisedPenal

_______________
11Id.
12Id.,atp.31.
13Id.,atp.34.
14ART. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents.The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its
mediumandmaximumperiodsandafineofnotmorethan5,000[pesos]shallbeimposedupon:
1. Anyprivateindividualwhoshallcommitanyofthefalsificationsenumeratedinthenextprecedingarticle[Article171]inany
publicorofficialdocumentorletterofexchangeoranyotherkindofcommercialdocumentand
xxxx
15ART. 171. Falsificationbypublicofficer,employeeornotaryorecclesiasticalminister.Thepenaltyofprisionmayoranda
finenottoexceed5,000pesosshallbeimposeduponanypublicofficer,employee,ornotarywho,takingadvantageofhisofficial

687

VOL.655,AUGUST 687
17,2011
Abellanavs.People

Code(RPC)andnotestafathroughfalsificationofpublicdocumentaschargedintheInformation.
ThedispositiveportionoftheRTCDecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedfindingtheaccusedFelixbertoAbellanaGUILTYofthecrimeoffalsification
ofpublicdocumentbyprivateindividualsunderArticle172oftheRevisedPenalCodeandsentenceshimtoanindeterminate
penaltyofTWO(2)YEARSandFOUR(4)MONTHSofPrisionCorreccional,asminimum,toSIX(6)YEARS,asmaximum.
Heisdirectedtoinstitutereconveyanceproceedingstorestoreownershipandpossessionoftherealpropertiesinquestionin
favor of private complainants. After private complainants shall have acquired full ownership and possession of the
aforementionedproperties,theyaredirectedtopaytheaccusedthesumofP130,000.00[with]legalinterestthereonreckoned
fromthetimethiscasewasinstituted.
Shouldtheaccusedfailtorestorefullownershipandpossessioninfavoroftheprivatecomplainants[of]therealproperties
inquestionwithinaperiodofsix(6)monthsfromthetimethisdecisionbecomesfinalandexecutory,heisdirectedtopaysaid
complainantsthesumofP1,103,000.00representingthetotalvalueofthepropertiesoftheprivatecomplainants.
Heislikewisedirectedtopayprivatecomplainantsthefollowing:
 1. P15,000.00fornominaldamages
2. P20,000.00forattorneysfees
3. P50,000.00asandforlitigationexpenses
4. P30,000.00asandforexemplarydamages
plusthecostofthissuit.

_______________
p osition,shallfalsify adocumentby committingany ofthefollowingacts:
xxxx
2. Causingittoap p earthatp ersonshavep articip atedinany actorp roceedingwhenthey didnotinfactsop articip ate
xxxx

688

688 SUPREMECOURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Abellanavs.People

SOORDERED.16

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
On appeal, petitioner raised the issue of whether an accused who was acquitted of the crime charged may
neverthelessbeconvictedofanothercrimeoroffensenotspecificallychargedandallegedandwhichisnotnecessarily
includedinthecrimeoroffensecharged.TheCA,initsDecisiondatedFebruary22,2006,ruledinthenegative.17It
heldthatpetitionerwhowaschargedwithandarraignedforestafathroughfalsificationofpublicdocumentunderArticle
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
counterfeitingofanyhandwriting,signatureorrubricwhilethefalsificationinArticle171(2)occurswhentheoffender
causedittoappearinadocumentthatapersonparticipatedinanactorproceedingwheninfactsuchpersondidnotso
participate.Thus,theCAopinedthattheconvictionofthepetitionerforanoffensenotallegedintheInformationorone
notnecessarilyincludedintheoffensechargedviolatedhisconstitutionalrighttobeinformedofthenatureandcauseof
the accusation against him.18Nonetheless, the CA affirmed the trial courts finding with respect to petitioners civil
liability.ThedispositiveportionoftheCAsFebruary22,2006Decisionreadsasfollows:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,WeresolvetosetasidetheDecisiondatedMay21,2003oftheRegionalTrialCourt,
7th Judicial Region, Branch 13, Cebu City only insofar as it found the petitioner guilty of a crime that is different from that
chargedintheInformation.Thecivilliabilitydeterminationsareaffirmed.

_______________
16CARollo,p .41.
17Id.,atp .180.
18Id.,atp .183.

689

VOL.655,AUGUST 689
17,2011
 Abellanavs.People

SOORDERED.19

PetitionerfiledamotionforreconsiderationwhichwasdeniedintheResolutiondatedAugust15,2006.
Hence, petitioner comes before us through the present Petition for Review onCertiorariraising the lone issue of
whetherhecouldstillbeheldcivillyliablenotwithstandinghisacquittalbythetrialcourtandtheCA.

OurRuling

Thepetitionismeritorious.
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.20Ineithercase,thejudgmentshalldetermineiftheactoromissionfromwhichthecivilliabilitymightarisedidnot
exist.21Whentheexonerationismerelyduetothefailuretoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt,the
court should award the civil liability in favor of the offended party in the same criminal action.22In other words, the
extinctionofthepenalactiondoesnotcarrywithittheextinctionofcivilliabilityunlesstheextinctionproceedsfroma
declarationinafinaljudgmentthatthefactfromwhichthecivil[liability]mightarisedidnotexist.23
Here,theCAsetasidethetrialcourtsDecisionbecauseitconvictedpetitionerofanoffensedifferentfromornot
includedinthecrimechargedintheInformation.Torecall,

_______________
19Id.,atpp.183184.
20HERRERA ,OSCARM.,REMEDIAL LAW ,VolumeIV,2001Ed.,p.178.
21Id.
22Id.
23Calalangv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.R.No.74613,February27,1991,194SCRA514,523524.

690

690 SUPREMECOURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Abellanavs.People

petitionerwaschargedwithestafathroughfalsificationofpublicdocument.However,theRTCfoundthatthespouses
Alontoactuallysignedthedocumentalthoughtheydidnotpersonallyappearbeforethenotarypublicforitsnotarization.
Hence,theRTCinsteadconvictedpetitioneroffalsificationofpublicdocument.Onappeal,theCAheldthatpetitioners
convictioncannotbesustainedbecauseitinfringedonhisrighttobeinformedofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusation
againsthim.24TheCA,however,foundnoreversibleerroronthecivilliabilityofpetitionerasdeterminedbythetrial
courtandthussustainedthesame.25
Wedonotagree.
InBanalv.Tadeo,Jr.,26weelucidatedonthecivilliabilityoftheaccuseddespitehisexonerationinthiswise:

Whileanactoromissionisfeloniousbecauseitispunishablebylaw,itgivesrisetocivilliabilitynotsomuchbecauseitisa
crimebutbecauseitcauseddamagetoanother.Viewingthingspragmatically,wecanreadilyseethatwhatgivesrisetothecivil
liabilityisreallytheobligationandmoraldutyofeveryonetorepairormakewholethedamagecausedtoanotherbyreasonof
hisownactoromission,doneintentionallyornegligently,whetherornotthesamebepunishablebylaw.xxx

Simplystated,civilliabilityariseswhenone,byreasonofhisownactoromission,doneintentionallyornegligently,
causesdamagetoanother.Hence,forpetitionertobecivillyliabletospousesAlonto,itmustbeproventhattheactshe
committedhadcauseddamagetothespouses.
Based on the records of the case, we find that the acts allegedly committed by the petitioner did not cause any
damagetospousesAlonto.

_______________
24CARollo,p.183.
25Id.
26240Phil.326,331156SCRA325,330(1987).

691

VOL.655,AUGUST 691
17,2011
Abellanavs.People

First, the Information charged petitioner with fraudulently making it appear that the spouses Alonto affixed their
signaturesintheDeedofAbsoluteSaletherebyfacilitatingthetransferofthesubjectpropertiesinhisfavor.However,
afterthepresentationofthepartiesrespectiveevidence,thetrialcourtfoundthatthechargewaswithoutbasisasthe
spousesAlontoindeedsignedthedocumentandthattheirsignaturesweregenuineandnotforged.
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 voidab initio the parties
transaction.27Such nonappearance 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.28AndsincethedefectivenotarizationdoesnotipsofactoinvalidatetheDeedofAbsoluteSale,thetransferof
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
thereaftersoldthesametothirdpersons,nodamageresultedtothespousesAlonto.
Moreover,wecannotsustainthealternativesentenceimposeduponthepetitioner,towit:toinstituteanactionforthe
recoveryofthepropertiesofspousesAlontoortopaythemactualandotherkindsofdamages.First,ithasabsolutely
nobasisinviewofthetrialcourtsfindingthatthesignaturesofthespousesAlontointheDeedofAbsoluteSaleare
genuineandnotforged.Second,[s]entencesshouldnotbeintheal

_______________
27St.MarysFarm,Inc.v.PrimaRealProperties,Inc.,G.R.No.158144,July31,2008,560SCRA704,713.
28Id.

692

692 SUPREMECOURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
 Abellanavs.People

ternative.Thereisnothinginthelawwhichpermitscourtstoimposesentencesinthealternative.29Whileajudgehasthe
discretionofimposingoneoranotherpenalty,hecannotimposebothinthealternative.30Hemustfixpositivelyandwith
certaintytheparticularpenalty.31
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,thereisthereforeabsolutelynobasisforthetrialcourtandtheCAtoholdpetitioner
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,
attorneysfeesandlitigationexpenses.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheFebruary22,2006DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.
SP No. 78644 and its August 15, 2006 Resolution are AFFIRMED insofar as they set aside the conviction of the
petitionerforthecrimeoffalsificationofpublicdocument.Theportionwhichaffirmedtheimpositionofcivilliabilitieson
thepetitioner,i.e.,therestorationofownershipandpossession,thepaymentofP1,103,000.00representingthevalueof
theproperty,andthepaymentofnominalandexemplarydamages,attorneysfeesandlitigationexpenses,isdeletedfor
lackoffactualandlegalbasis.
SOORDERED.

Corona(C.J.,Chairperson),LeonardoDeCastro,BersaminandVillarama,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

Petitiongranted,judgmentandresolutionaffirmed.

_______________
29UnitedStatesv.ChongTingandHaKang,23Phil.120,124(1912).
30Id.,atp.125.
31Id.

693

VOL.655,AUGUST 693
17,2011
Abellanavs.People

Note.Anorderdischarginganaccusedfromtheinformationinorderthathemaytestifyfortheprosecutionhasthe
effectofanacquittalTheonlyinstancewherethetestimonyofadischargedaccusedmaybedisregardediswhenhe
deliberatelyfailstotestifytruthfullyincourtinaccordancewithhiscommitmentasprovidedforinSection18,Rule119.
(Mongevs.People,548SCRA42[2008])

o0o