Abellana vs. People, 655 SCRA 683 (2011)
Abellana vs. People, 655 SCRA 683 (2011)
Abellana vs. People, 655 SCRA 683 (2011)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
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
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.
RULE 120
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
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 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.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
[Abellana vs. People, 655 SCRA 683(2011)]
RULE 120
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
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.