Go vs. Looyuko

A trial court gravely abuses its discretion when it arbitrarily denies the prosecution the opportunity to present additional witnesses in a criminal case absent any showing of dilatory intent, as the selection of prosecution witnesses is the prerogative of the prosecutor and the court must afford full opportunity to adduce evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, a writ of preliminary injunction may not issue to restrain an act already consummated, and a certiorari petition filed while a motion for reconsideration is pending before the lower court constitutes forum shopping.

Petitioner Jimmy T. Go and respondent Alberto T. Looyuko were business associates in the Noah's Ark Group of Companies, a collection of sole proprietorships registered under respondent's name with the Department of Trade and Industry. Petitioner served as business manager or chief operating officer. The parties executed two agreements dated February 9, 1982 and October 10, 1986, under which they allegedly agreed to be equally entitled to 50% of the business, goodwill, profits, and properties of the group of companies, notwithstanding that the ventures were registered solely in respondent's name. A falling out between the parties in 1997 spawned numerous civil lawsuits and a criminal complaint for estafa, generating multiple interlocutory disputes that reached the Court of Appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

Petitioner Jimmy T. Go and respondent Alberto T. Looyuko were business associates in the Noah's Ark Group of Companies, a collection of sole proprietorships registered under respondent's name with the Department of Trade and Industry. The group included Noah's Ark International, Noah's Ark Sugar Carriers, Noah's Ark Sugar Truckers, Noah's Ark Sugar Repacker, Noah's Ark Sugar Insurers, Noah's Ark Sugar Terminal, Noah's Ark Sugar Building, and Noah's Ark Sugar Refinery, along with the land on which these structures stood. Petitioner served as business manager or chief operating officer. The parties executed two agreements dated February 9, 1982 and October 10, 1986, under which they allegedly agreed that, for convenience and expediency, the ventures would be registered solely in respondent's name, while both parties would be equally entitled to 50% of the business, goodwill, profits, and real and personal properties of the group of companies.

Sometime in 1997, the business associates had a falling out that spawned numerous civil lawsuits. Among these were Civil Case No. 98-91153 before the Manila RTC, Branch 36, an action filed by respondent to amend Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 160277 and 160284 by deleting petitioner's name as co-owner, and Civil Case No. MC 98-038 before the Mandaluyong City RTC, Branch 213, a petition to cancel adverse claims annotated by petitioner on TCT Nos. 64070 and 3325. In both cases, petitioner anchored his defense and adverse claims on the 1982 and 1986 agreements.

On May 21, 1998, petitioner filed an affidavit-complaint before the Makati City RTC, Branch 56, charging respondent with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, docketed as Criminal Case No. 98-1643. Petitioner alleged that respondent misappropriated and converted to his own name petitioner's 41,376 China Banking Corporation shares of stock, which petitioner had entrusted to respondent for sale, with a total market value of approximately ₱57,926,400.00. After respondent pleaded not guilty, the prosecution presented its witnesses, including petitioner and Amalia de Leon, an employee of CBC who testified that certificates of stock in petitioner's name were cancelled and new certificates were issued in respondent's name. The trial court then ruled that the testimonies of Peter Dee, President of CBC, Atty. Arsenio Lim, Corporate Secretary of CBC, and Gloria Padecio were superfluous, as the facts they would testify to had already been established. The prosecution was ordered to make a formal offer of evidence.

Petitioner sought reconsideration and asked that the prosecution be allowed to present Bohn Bernard J. Briones of Amsteel Securities, Inc. as a final witness. The RTC granted the motion, but Briones's testimony left gaps on certain vital points. The prosecution then sought to present Alvin Padecio, the son of respondent and the alleged stock agent who handled the transaction, but the trial court denied the request. Petitioner thereafter filed multiple motions for inhibition of Judge Nemesio Felix, an administrative case against the judge (OCA I.P.I. No. 00-971-RTJ), and refused to submit a formal offer of documentary evidence pending resolution of the inhibition issue. The trial court declared the prosecution to have waived its right to formal offer of evidence and granted respondent leave to file a demurrer to evidence. Petitioner elevated these rulings to the CA via petitions for certiorari, which were dismissed.

Meanwhile, on May 23, 2000, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 67921 for Specific Performance, Accounting, Inventory of Assets and Damages before the Pasig City RTC, Branch 69, seeking enforcement of the 1982 and 1986 partnership agreements. Respondent moved to dismiss on grounds of forum shopping, litis pendentia, and laches, but the motion was denied. The trial court granted petitioner's motion to conduct an inventory of the assets of the group of companies under the supervision of the Branch Clerk of Court. The inventory was completed on January 5, 2001. On January 2, 2001, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the denial of his motion to dismiss and the grant of the inventory motion, simultaneously filing a motion for reconsideration of the same orders in the trial court. The CA issued a TRO on January 8, 2001, and subsequently granted a writ of preliminary injunction on February 12, 2001, enjoining the trial court from enforcing its orders and conducting further proceedings. During the pendency of the consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court, respondent died on October 29, 2004.

• Voluntary Inhibition: Petitioner asserted that Presiding Judge Nemesio Felix displayed manifest bias and partiality in favor of respondent by disallowing the presentation of vital prosecution witnesses without valid reason and in utter bad faith, and that the judge's harsh language in his comment to the administrative case showed animosity and enmity against petitioner.
• Denial of Additional Witnesses: Petitioner contended that the prosecution should have been given the opportunity to present four witnesses — Dee, Lim, Gloria Padecio, and Alvin Padecio — who were vital to prove the allegations in the Information and the issues embodied in the Pre-Trial Order.
• Procedural Defects in CA Petition: Petitioner argued that the CA gravely abused its discretion in failing to dismiss respondent's petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 62438 despite respondent's failure to attach all relevant and pertinent documents, and that the procedural defect was not cured by admitting additional annexes.
• Forum Shopping by Respondent: Petitioner alleged that respondent committed forum shopping by filing a petition for certiorari before the CA while a motion for reconsideration was still pending before the trial court, and by failing to inform the appellate court of this pending motion.
• Injunction Improperly Granted: Petitioner maintained that the injunction should have been denied because the inventory of assets had already been completed (a consummated act), respondent had unclean hands, no irreparable damage existed, and a plain and adequate legal remedy was available. Petitioner also objected to the measly ₱50,000 injunction bond.
• Lack of Litis Pendentia and Forum Shopping in Civil Case No. 67921: Petitioner argued that the causes of action and reliefs sought in Civil Case No. 67921 were distinct from those in Civil Case Nos. 98-91153 and MC 98-038, such that neither litis pendentia nor forum shopping existed.

• Litis Pendentia and Forum Shopping: Respondent argued that petitioner was barred by litis pendentia in filing Civil Case No. 67921 because the validity and binding effect of the disputed partnership agreements had already been squarely raised in Civil Case Nos. 98-91153 and MC 98-038, where petitioner had anchored his defense and adverse claims on the same agreements and prayed for positive relief based thereon.
• Laches and Abandonment: Respondent maintained that the complaint in Civil Case No. 67921 should be dismissed on grounds of abandonment or laches.
• Propriety of Injunction: Respondent sought injunctive relief to enjoin the trial court from enforcing its orders and conducting further proceedings in Civil Case No. 67921 pending resolution of the certiorari petition.

• Voluntary Inhibition: Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court's denial of petitioner's motion for voluntary inhibition of Judge Felix.
• Denial of Additional Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the prosecution the opportunity to present additional witnesses, and whether the CA erred in affirming such denial.
• Waiver of Formal Offer of Evidence and Demurrer: Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court's declaration that the prosecution waived its right to formal offer of evidence and in allowing respondent to file a demurrer to evidence.
• Premature Filing and Forum Shopping: Whether respondent's petition for certiorari before the CA was prematurely filed and constituted forum shopping due to the pendency of a motion for reconsideration before the trial court.
• Propriety of Injunction: Whether the CA erred in granting the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the trial court from enforcing its orders and conducting further proceedings in Civil Case No. 67921.
• Consummated Acts: Whether the writ of injunction was moot given that the inventory of assets had already been completed before the TRO and writ were issued.
• Litis Pendentia and Forum Shopping in Civil Case No. 67921: Whether Civil Case No. 67921 was barred by litis pendentia or forum shopping due to the pendency of Civil Case Nos. 98-91153 and MC 98-038.
• Laches: Whether the complaint in Civil Case No. 67921 should be dismissed on the ground of laches or abandonment.
• Effect of Death of Respondent: Whether the death of respondent during the pendency of the criminal case extinguished both criminal and civil liability.

• Voluntary Inhibition: No. The CA correctly affirmed the denial of the motion for inhibition, as the grounds raised by petitioner did not constitute badges of partiality and were not among the mandatory disqualifications under Rule 137, Section 1.
• Denial of Additional Prosecution Witnesses: Yes. The trial court gravely abused its discretion in arbitrarily denying the prosecution the opportunity to present four witnesses whose testimonies were neither superfluous nor dilatory, as the selection of prosecution witnesses is the prerogative of the prosecutor.
• Waiver of Formal Offer of Evidence and Demurrer: Yes. The CA erred in affirming the trial court's declaration of waiver and grant of demurrer to evidence, as the trial court's denial of additional witnesses was the root cause of the prosecution's refusal to submit a formal offer.
• Premature Filing and Forum Shopping: Yes. Respondent was guilty of forum shopping because he filed a petition for certiorari before the CA on the same day he filed a motion for reconsideration before the trial court, without awaiting the resolution of the latter.
• Propriety of Injunction: No. The CA erred in granting the writ of preliminary injunction, as the petition was prematurely filed and the injunction was directed against acts already consummated.
• Consummated Acts: Yes. The inventory of assets had already been completed on January 5, 2001, before the CA issued its TRO on January 8, 2001 and writ on February 12, 2001, rendering the injunction moot.
• Litis Pendentia and Forum Shopping in Civil Case No. 67921: No. Neither litis pendentia nor forum shopping existed, as there was no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for between Civil Case No. 67921 and Civil Case Nos. 98-91153 and MC 98-038.
• Laches: No. Laches is evidentiary in nature and cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss.
• Effect of Death of Respondent: Yes. The death of respondent on October 29, 2004 extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability arising directly from the delict, but civil liability predicated on a source of obligation other than the delict survives and may be pursued in a separate civil action against the estate.

• Voluntary Inhibition: The Court found no manifest partiality in the trial court's adverse rulings on the denial of proposed testimonies, as these were judicial in nature. Absent proof that the judge acted in a wanton, whimsical, or oppressive manner, or for illegal consideration, inhibition is not warranted. The allegation that respondent's counsel stated "Amin na si Judge" first surfaced only in petitioner's second supplemental motion, not in prior pleadings, undermining its credibility. Bias and prejudice must be proved with clear and convincing evidence; bare allegations do not suffice. The grounds raised were not among the five mandatory disqualifications under the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137, and thus fell within the judge's sound discretion under the second paragraph. The administrative case against Judge Felix was dismissed by the Court on June 26, 2002, and the judge had compulsorily retired on December 19, 2004, rendering the issue moot.

• Denial of Additional Prosecution Witnesses: The prosecution in a criminal case must be afforded ample opportunity to present testimonial and documentary evidence, as proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. The Pre-Trial Order of January 19, 1999 showed that the prosecution intended to present seven witnesses to resolve whether petitioner was a mere employee or a "50-50" partner, but only three were allowed to testify. The testimonies of Dee and Lim from CBC would have bolstered the prosecution's case on the transfer of stock certificates, as only de Leon corroborated petitioner's self-serving testimony. The superfluity of testimony can be determined with certainty only after it has been adduced. Section 6 of Rule 134 allows the court to stop further testimony only when evidence is already so full that additional witnesses cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive, and this power must be exercised with caution — more so in criminal cases. The testimony of Gloria Padecio was necessary to corroborate the alleged partnership, which was essential because the element of trust in estafa by abuse of confidence depends on the existence of the partnership. The denial of Alvin Padecio's testimony was likewise erroneous, as Briones's testimony left vital gaps that Alvin Padecio could have filled. The trial court's denial was capricious, whimsical, and arbitrary, amounting to grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

• Waiver of Formal Offer of Evidence and Demurrer: The CA erred in affirming the trial court's declaration of waiver and grant of demurrer to evidence because the prosecution's refusal to submit a formal offer was rooted in the trial court's unjustified denial of additional witnesses. The pendency of the inhibition issue before the CA, absent a TRO, did not suspend proceedings in the trial court, but petitioner should have been afforded the opportunity to present his full evidence. The trial court's orders were reversed and set aside.

• Premature Filing and Forum Shopping: Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration before the trial court on the same day he filed his petition for certiorari before the CA, without awaiting the resolution of the motion. A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a petition for certiorari may be properly filed. The issues brought before the CA were similar to those raised in the motion for reconsideration, involving the same cause of action and reliefs sought. Respondent was remiss in failing to inform the appellate court of the pending motion. The petition was prematurely filed and should have been denied due course outright.

• Propriety of Injunction: The CA's grant of the writ of preliminary injunction was erroneous because the petition was prematurely filed and respondent was guilty of forum shopping. Additionally, the CA committed reversible error in holding that petitioner proceeded at his own peril in conducting the inventory, as petitioner did not know of the certiorari petition until January 12, 2001 — after the inventory was completed on January 5, 2001. The CA's reliance on Verzosa vs. Court of Appeals was misplaced.

• Consummated Acts: The established principle is that when the events sought to be prevented by injunction have already happened, nothing more can be enjoined or prohibited. An injunction will not issue to restrain the performance of an act already done, for the simple reason that nothing more can be done in reference thereto. The inventory was completed before the TRO and writ were issued, rendering the injunctive writ moot and academic. Moreover, the inventory of assets does not confer any rights and does not prejudice respondent's rights over the inventoried assets, as it is merely an ancillary remedy preparatory to other legal remedies.

• Litis Pendentia and Forum Shopping in Civil Case No. 67921: For litis pendentia to warrant dismissal, there must be identity of parties or interests, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for founded on the same acts, and identity such that a judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present and a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. In Civil Case No. 67921, the relief sought was the enforcement of the disputed partnership agreements, whereas in Civil Case Nos. 98-91153 and MC 98-038, the reliefs sought by petitioner (as defendant) were merely defenses for his co-ownership and adverse claims. These defenses cannot be equated with seeking relief for the enforcement of the partnership agreements. The causes of action and reliefs were different and did not stem from the same acts.

• Laches: Laches is controlled by equitable considerations and is evidentiary in nature; it cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss. The trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss on this ground.

• Effect of Death of Respondent: The death of the accused pending final adjudication of the criminal case extinguishes criminal liability. If civil liability directly arose from and is based solely on the offense, it is also extinguished. However, the civil liability for the recovery of the CBC stock certificates does not directly result from the crime of estafa but on an agreement or arrangement between the parties — petitioner would endorse in blank the stock certificates and give them to respondent in trust for sale. Under Article 1157 of the Civil Code, obligations may arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts. Where civil liability survives, an action for recovery may be pursued by filing a separate civil action against the executor, administrator, or estate of the accused, subject to Section 1, Rule 111. Under Section 4, Rule 111, the independent civil action to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused. Criminal Case No. 98-1643 was ordered dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a separate civil action.

• Voluntary Inhibition of Judges — A judge's decision to inhibit himself from sitting in a case for just or valid reasons other than the five mandatory disqualifications under Section 1, Rule 137 lies within the judge's sound discretion. Bias and prejudice, to be considered valid reasons for voluntary inhibition, must be proved with clear and convincing evidence; bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice. Adverse rulings, being judicial in nature, do not constitute badges of partiality absent proof that the judge acted in a wanton, whimsical, or oppressive manner or for illegal consideration.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or where power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. An error of judgment committed in the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as grave abuse of discretion.

• Prosecution's Prerogative to Select Witnesses — The matter of deciding who to present as a witness for the prosecution is not for the defendant or the trial court to decide; it is the prerogative of the prosecutor. The trial court must accord full opportunity for the prosecution, more so in criminal cases, to adduce evidence to prove its case and properly ventilate the issues absent patent showing of dilatory or delaying tactics.

• Power of Court to Stop Further Evidence (Rule 134, Section 6) — The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution, particularly in criminal cases where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.

• Extinction of Criminal and Civil Liability by Death of Accused — The death of the accused pending final adjudication of the criminal case extinguishes criminal liability. If the civil liability directly arose from and is based solely on the offense, it is likewise extinguished. However, if the civil liability may be predicated on a source of obligation other than the delict (such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts under Article 1157 of the Civil Code), the civil liability survives and an action for recovery may be pursued by filing a separate civil action against the executor, administrator, or estate of the accused, subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

• Forum Shopping — Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present and a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. A motion for reconsideration is an adequate remedy in itself and is a condition sine qua non to the prosecution of a certiorari petition; filing a certiorari petition while a motion for reconsideration is pending before the lower court constitutes forum shopping.

• Litis Pendentia — For litis pendentia to be a ground for dismissal, there must be: (1) identity of parties or at least such as to represent the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same acts; and (3) identity in the two cases such that the judgment in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.

• Injunction Cannot Restrain Consummated Acts — When the events sought to be prevented by injunction or prohibition have already happened, nothing more can be enjoined or prohibited. An injunction will not issue to restrain the performance of an act already done, because nothing more can be done in reference thereto. A writ of injunction becomes moot and academic after the act sought to be enjoined has already been consummated.

• Inventory of Assets Confers No Rights — An inventory does not confer any rights. It is merely an ancillary remedy preparatory for a party to institute other legal remedies for the protection of whatever right the party may have over the subject of the inventory. Conducting an inventory does not prejudice the rights of the party over the inventoried assets absent a final determination by the court on the main action.

• Laches Is Evidentiary — Laches, being controlled by equitable considerations and addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, is evidentiary in nature and cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss.

• "The matter of deciding who to present as a witness for the prosecution is not for the defendant or the trial court to decide, as it is the prerogative of the prosecutor." — This passage articulates the fundamental principle that the selection of prosecution witnesses belongs to the prosecutor, not the court or the defense, and is frequently cited in criminal procedure jurisprudence.

• "Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." — This is the canonical formulation of the standard for grave abuse of discretion in certiorari proceedings, defining the threshold for the issuance of the writ under Rule 65.

• "The death of the accused pending final adjudication of the criminal case extinguishes the accused's criminal liability. If the civil liability directly arose from and is based solely on the offense committed, then the civil liability is also extinguished." — This passage states the rule on the effect of the death of the accused on criminal and civil liability, distinguishing between civil liability arising from the delict and civil liability predicated on other sources of obligation.

• "When the events sought to be prevented by injunction or prohibition have already happened, nothing more could be enjoined or prohibited." — This is the controlling principle on the futility of injunction against consummated acts, central to the Court's ruling lifting the writ of preliminary injunction.

• People vs. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239 — Controlling precedent on the effect of the death of the accused on criminal and civil liability; the Court relied on this case to hold that criminal liability is extinguished by death, and civil liability based solely on the delict is likewise extinguished, but civil liability predicated on other sources of obligation survives.

• People vs. Dagami, G.R. No. 136397, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 482 — Followed for the principle that the selection of prosecution witnesses is the prerogative of the prosecutor, not the defendant or the trial court.

• Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72424, February 13, 1989, 170 SCRA 246 — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

• Cebu International Finance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123031, October 12, 1999, 316 SCRA 488 — Followed for the three elements of litis pendentia required for dismissal of an action.

• Prubankers Association vs. Prudential Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 131247, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 74 — Followed for the principle that forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present and a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.

• Felix Gochan and Sons Realty Corporation vs. Heirs of Raymundo Baba, G.R. No. 138945, August 19, 2003, 409 SCRA 306 — Followed for the principle that laches is evidentiary in nature and cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss.

• Ramos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80908, May 24, 1989, 173 SCRA 550 — Followed for the principle that when events sought to be prevented by injunction have already happened, nothing more can be enjoined.

• Joseph Estrada vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001, 353 SCRA 452 — Cited for the rule that bias and prejudice must be proved with clear and convincing evidence to warrant voluntary inhibition of a judge.

• Section 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court — Governs disqualification of judges, distinguishing between mandatory disqualifications (first paragraph) and voluntary inhibition based on sound discretion (second paragraph). The Court held that the grounds raised by petitioner were not among the mandatory disqualifications and thus fell within the judge's sound discretion.

• Section 6, Rule 134, Rules of Court — Grants the court power to stop further testimony when evidence on a particular point is already so full that additional witnesses cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive, with the caveat that this power should be exercised with caution. The Court found that the trial court erred in invoking this provision, as the evidence was not yet so full given that only one corroborating witness had testified.

• Section 25, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Provides the parental and filial privilege that no person may be compelled to testify against parents, other direct ascendants, children, or other direct descendants. The CA relied on this provision to uphold the denial of Alvin Padecio's testimony, as he was the son of respondent.

• Section 4, Rule 111, Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provides that the death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action extinguishes civil liability arising from the delict, but independent civil actions to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for certiorari, requiring that the petition be accompanied by certified true copies of the judgment, order, or resolution, copies of all relevant pleadings and documents, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. The Court held that the appellate court has discretion to give due course to or dismiss petitions, and that respondent's procedural defect was cured by the submission of additional annexes.

• Section 7, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Provides that the filing of a petition for certiorari shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction has been issued. The Court held that the CA should have proceeded to resolve the petition notwithstanding the pendency of G.R. No. 147962 before the Supreme Court.

• Section 5, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Requires that all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. The Court noted that petitioner's petitions before the CA did not reflect the conformity of the trial prosecutor, breaching this rule, though the matter was mooted by respondent's death.

• Article 315, paragraph 1(b), Revised Penal Code — Defines estafa by abuse of confidence, the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 98-1643. The element of trust was central to the prosecution's need to prove the alleged partnership between the parties.

• Article 1157, Civil Code — Enumerates the sources of obligations — law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts — from which civil liability may arise independently of the delict. The Court relied on this provision to hold that petitioner's civil claim for recovery of the stock certificates could be predicated on a contract or arrangement between the parties, surviving the extinguishment of criminal liability.

Quisumbing, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, and Tinga, JJ., concurred.