Abellana vs. People

Civil liability does not survive an acquittal where the proven acts did not cause damage to the offended party.

In 1985, petitioner extended a loan to spouses Alonto secured by a real estate mortgage over two lots in Cebu City. In 1987, petitioner prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the lots to himself, which the spouses signed in Manila, though it was notarized in Cebu without their personal appearance. Petitioner subsequently transferred the titles to his name and sold the lots to third persons.

• Loan and Mortgage: Petitioner loaned funds to spouses Alonto in 1985, secured by a real estate mortgage over Lot Nos. 6471 and 6472 in Cebu City.
• Execution of Deed of Absolute Sale: In 1987, petitioner prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale over the lots. Spouses Alonto signed the deed in Manila, but it was notarized in Cebu City without their personal appearance before the notary public.
• Transfer and Sale: Petitioner caused the cancellation of the spouses' title, the issuance of a new title in his name, and the subsequent sale of the lots to third persons.
• Criminal Charge: An Information was filed charging petitioner with Estafa through Falsification of Public Document under Article 171(1) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly counterfeiting the spouses' signatures to make it appear they sold the property.
• RTC Findings: The RTC found that the spouses actually signed the deed and their signatures were genuine, negating forgery. However, the RTC convicted petitioner of Falsification of Public Document by a Private Individual under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171(2) for causing the spouses to appear to have participated before the notary. The RTC imposed an alternative sentence of reconveyance or payment of the property's value, plus damages.
• CA Findings: The CA acquitted petitioner, ruling that convicting him of an offense different from that charged violated his right to be informed of the accusation. The CA nonetheless affirmed the civil liability.

• Civil Liability after Acquittal: Petitioner maintained that he could no longer be held civilly liable notwithstanding his acquittal by both the trial court and the CA.

• Survival of Civil Liability: Respondent argued that civil liability survives the extinction of the penal action because the acquittal was based on a variance in the charge, not on a declaration that the act from which civil liability might arise did not exist.

• Civil Liability after Acquittal: Whether petitioner could still be held civilly liable notwithstanding his acquittal.

• Civil Liability after Acquittal: Civil liability was deleted for lack of factual and legal basis. While the extinction of the penal action does not automatically extinguish civil liability, such liability requires proof that the accused's acts caused damage to another. The RTC found the spouses' signatures genuine, negating the charge of forgery. Furthermore, the spouses' failure to appear before the notary public did not void the transaction, as defective notarization does not ipso facto invalidate a deed absent clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of truthfulness. Because the transfer remained valid, no damage resulted to the spouses. Additionally, the trial court's alternative sentence was invalid, as sentences must be fixed positively and with certainty, not in the alternative.

• Civil liability in case of acquittal — 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. However, civil liability arises only when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another.
• Presumption of regularity of a notarized document — Defective notarization, such as the lack of personal appearance before the notary public, does not ipso facto invalidate a deed or render it void ab initio. To overcome the presumption of truthfulness of the statements in the deed, there must be sufficient, clear, and convincing evidence excluding all reasonable controversy as to its falsity.
• Prohibition against alternative sentences — Courts cannot impose sentences in the alternative. The penalty must be fixed positively and with certainty.

• "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."
• "Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another."
• "[S]entences should not be in the alternative. There is nothing in the law which permits courts to impose sentences in the alternative."

• Banal v. Tadeo, Jr., 240 Phil. 326 (1987) — Followed. Elucidated that civil liability arises from the obligation and moral duty to repair damage caused by one's own act or omission, whether or not punishable by law.
• Calalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74613, February 27, 1991 — Followed. Cited for the rule that extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability unless the fact from which it might arise did not exist.
• St. Mary’s Farm, Inc. v. Prima Real Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 158144, July 31, 2008 — Followed. Cited for the principle that defective notarization does not ipso facto invalidate a deed.
• United States v. Chong Ting and Ha Kang, 23 Phil. 120 (1912) — Followed. Cited for the rule that sentences should not be in the alternative.

• Article 172(1), Revised Penal Code — Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. Applied by the RTC to convict petitioner, but set aside by the CA due to variance.
• Article 171(1), Revised Penal Code — Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary by counterfeiting any handwriting, signature, or rubric. The Information charged this mode of falsification, which was belied by the finding that the signatures were genuine.
• Article 171(2), Revised Penal Code — Falsification by causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or proceeding when they did not. The RTC convicted petitioner under this mode in relation to Art. 172, which the CA set aside.

Renato C. Corona (CJ), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr.