Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

FELIXBERTO A. ABELLANA, G.R. No. 174654

Petitioner,

Present:

- versus - CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, and

VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

and Spouses SAAPIA B. ALONTO Promulgated:

and DIAGA ALONTO, August 17, 2011

Respondents.

x-------------------------------------------------------------------x
 DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

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 Decision1[1] of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 78644 and its August 15, 2006 Resolution2[2] denying
the motion for reconsideration thereto. The assailed CA Decision set aside the May 21,
2003 Decision3[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 13, in Criminal
Case No. CBU-51385 and acquitted the petitioner of the crime of falsification of public
document by a private individual because the Information charged him with a different
offense which is estafa through falsification of a public document.4[4] However, the CA
still adjudged him civilly liable.5[5]

1[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[2] Id. at 238.

3[3] Id. at30-41; penned by Judge Meinrado P. Paredes.

4[4] Id. at 180.

5[5] Id. at 184.

Factual Antecedents

In 1985, petitioner extended a loan to private respondents spouses Diaga and Saapia
Alonto (spouses Alonto),6[6] secured by a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over Lot Nos.
6471 and 6472 located in Cebu City.7[7] Subsequently, or in 1987, petitioner prepared a
Deed of Absolute Sale conveying said lots to him. The Deed of Absolute Sale was signed
by spouses Alonto in Manila. However, it was notarized in Cebu City allegedly without
the spouses Alonto appearing before the notary public.8[8] Thereafter, petitioner caused
the transfer of the titles to his name and sold the lots to third persons.

On August 12, 1999,9[9] an Information10[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

6[6] Id. at 33.

7[7] Id.

8[8] Id.

9[9] Id. at 6.

10[10] Id. at 42-43.

 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[11]

During arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.12[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[13] Based on the evidence presented by both parties, the trial court found

11[11] Id.

12[12] Id. at 31.

13[13] Id. at 34.

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[14] in relation to Article 171(2)15[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

14[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

xxxx

15[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:

xxxx

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not
in fact so participate;

xxxx
 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[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

16[16] CA rollo, p. 41.

negative.17[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[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, Cebu City only
insofar as it found the petitioner guilty of a crime that is different from that charged in the
Information. The civil liability determinations are affirmed.

SO ORDERED.19[19]

17[17] Id. at 180.

18[18] Id. at 183.

19[19] Id. at 183-184.

 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[20] In either case, the
judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise
did not exist.21[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[22] In other words, the extinction of the

20[20] HERRERA, OSCAR M., REMEDIAL LAW, Volume IV, 2001 Ed., p. 178.

21[21] Id.

22[22] Id.
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[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[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[25]

We do not agree.

23[23] Calalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74613, February 27, 1991, 194 SCRA 514,
523-524.

24[24] CA rollo, p. 183.

25[25] Id.
 In Banal v. Tadeo, Jr.,26[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

26[26] 240 Phil. 326, 331 (1987).

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[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[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

27[27] St. Marys Farm, Inc. v. Prima Real Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 158144, July 31, 2008, 560 SCRA
704, 713.

28[28] Id.
nothing in the law which permits courts to impose sentences in the alternative.29[29]
While a judge has the discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot impose
both in the alternative.30[30] He must fix positively and with certainty the particular
penalty.31[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.

29[29] United States v. Chong Ting and Ha Kang, 23 Phil. 120, 124 (1912).

30[30] Id. at 125.

31[31] Id.
 SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

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