FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 174654, August 17, 2011]

FELIXERTO A. AELLANA, !ETITIONER, VS. !EO!LE OF T"E !"ILI!!INES AND
S!O#SES SAA!IA . ALONTO AND DIAGA ALONTO, RES!ONDENTS.
D E $ I S I O N
DEL $ASTILLO, %.&
The only issue that confronts this Court is whether petitioner Felixberto A. Abellana could still be
held civilly liable notwithstanding his acquittal.
Assailed before this Court are the February 22, 200 !ecision
"#$
of the Court of Appeals %CA& in CA'
(.). *+ ,o. -.// and its August #0, 200 )esolution
"2$
denying the 1otion for reconsideration
thereto. The assailed CA !ecision set aside the 2ay 2#, 2003 !ecision
"3$
of the )egional Trial Court
%)TC& of Cebu City, 4ranch #3, in Cri1inal Case ,o. C45'0#3.0 and acquitted the petitioner of the
cri1e of falsification of public docu1ent by a private individual because the 6nfor1ation charged
hi1 with a different offense which is estafa through falsification of a public docu1ent.
"/$
7owever,
the CA still ad8udged hi1 civilly liable.
"0$
Factual Antecedents
6n #9.0, petitioner extended a loan to private respondents spouses !iaga and *aapia Alonto
%spouses Alonto&,
"$
secured by a !eed of )eal :state 2ortgage over ;ot ,os. /-# and /-2
located in Cebu City.
"-$
*ubsequently, or in #9.-, petitioner prepared a !eed of Absolute *ale
conveying said lots to hi1. The !eed of Absolute *ale was signed by spouses Alonto in 2anila.
7owever, it was notari<ed in Cebu City allegedly without the spouses Alonto appearing before the
notary public.
".$
Thereafter, petitioner caused the transfer of the titles to his na1e and sold the lots
to third persons.
=n August #2, #999,
"9$
an 6nfor1ation
"#0$
was filed charging petitioner with :stafa through
Falsification of +ublic !ocu1ent, the accusatory portion of which reads>
That on or about the 9
th
day of ?uly, #9.-, in the City of Cebu, +hilippines, and within the
8urisdiction of this 7onorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, and with intent to
defraud, did then and there falsify a public docu1ent consisting of a !eed of Absolute *ale of a
parcel of land consisting of .03 square 1eters executed before ,otary +ublic (ines ,. Abellana per
!oc. ,o. 3.3, +age ,o. --, 4oo@ ,o. AA666, *eries of #9.- of the latterBs ,otarial )egister showing
that spouses *aapia 4. Alonto and !iaga Alonto sold their parcel of land located at +ardo, Cebu City,
for a consideration of +#30,000.00 in favor of accused by i1itating, counterfeiting, signing or
"causing$ to be i1itated or counterfeited the signature"s$ of spouses *aapia 4. Alonto and !iaga
Alonto above their typewritten na1es in said docu1ent as vendor"s$, when in truth and in fact as
the accused very well @new that spouses *aapia 4. Alonto and !iaga Alonto did not sell their
aforestated descri"b$ed property and that the signature"s$ appearing in said docu1ent are not their
signature"s$, thus causing it to appear that spouses *aapia 4. Alonto and !iaga Alonto participated
in the execution of said docu1ent when they did not so participate". =nce$ said docu1ent was
falsified, accused did then and there cause the transfer of the titles of said land to his na1e using
the said falsified docu1ent, to the da1age and pre8udice of spouses *aapia 4. Alonto and !iaga
Alonto in the a1ount of +#30,000.00, the value of the land .
C=,T)A)C T= ;AD.
"##$
!uring arraign1ent, petitioner entered a plea of Enot guiltyE.
"#2$
After the ter1ination of the pre'
trial conference, trial ensued.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
6n its !ecision dated 2ay 2#, 2003, the )TC noted that the 1ain issue for resolution was whether
petitioner co11itted the cri1e of estafa through falsification of public docu1ent.
"#3$
4ased on the
evidence presented by both parties, the trial court found that petitioner did not intend to defraud
the spouses AlontoF that after the latter failed to pay their obligation, petitioner prepared a !eed of
Absolute *ale which the spouses Alonto actually signedF but that the !eed of Absolute *ale was
notari<ed without the spouses Alonto personally appearing before the notary public. Fro1 these,
the trial court concluded that petitioner can only be held guilty of Falsification of a +ublic !ocu1ent
by a private individual under Article #-2%#&
"#/$
in relation to Article #-#%2&
"#0$
of the )evised +enal
Code %)+C& and not estafa through falsification of public docu1ent as charged in the 6nfor1ation.
The dispositive portion of the )TC !ecision reads>
D7:):F=):, 8udg1ent is hereby rendered finding the accused Felixberto Abellana (56;TC of the
cri1e of falsification of public docu1ent by private individuals under Article #-2 of the )evised +enal
Code and sentences hi1 to an indeter1inate penalty of TD= %2& C:A)* and F=5) %/& 2=,T7* of
+rision Correccional, as 1ini1u1, to *6A %&C:A)*, as 1axi1u1.
7e is directed to institute reconveyance proceedings to restore ownership and possession of the real
properties in question in favor of private co1plainants. After private co1plainants shall have
acquired full ownership and possession of the afore1entioned properties, they are directed to pay
the accused the su1 of +#30,000.00 "with$ legal interest thereon rec@oned fro1 the ti1e this case
was instituted.
*hould the accused fail to restore full ownership and possession in favor of the private co1plainants
"of$ the real properties in question within a period of six %& 1onths fro1 the ti1e this decision
beco1es final and executory, he is directed to pay said co1plainants the su1 of +#,#03,000.00
representing the total value of the properties of the private co1plainants.
7e is li@ewise directed to pay private co1plainants the following>
#. +#0,000.00 for no1inal da1agesF
2. +20,000.00 for attorneyBs feesF
3. +00,000.00 as and for litigation expensesF
/. +30,000.00 as and for exe1plary da1agesF
plus the cost of this suit.
*= =)!:):!.
"#$
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
=n appeal, petitioner raised the issue of whether an accused who was acquitted of the cri1e
charged 1ay nevertheless be convicted of another cri1e or offense not specifically charged and
alleged and which is not necessarily included in the cri1e or offense charged. The CA, in its
!ecision dated February 22, 200, ruled in the negative.
"#-$
6t held that petitioner who was charged
with and arraigned for estafa through falsification of public docu1ent under Article #-#%#& of the
)+C could not be convicted of Falsification of +ublic !ocu1ent by a +rivate 6ndividual under Article
#-2%#& in relation to Article #-#%2&. The CA observed that the falsification co11itted in Article
#-#%#& requires the counterfeiting of any handwriting, signature or rubric while the falsification in
Article #-#%2& occurs when the offender caused it to appear in a docu1ent 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 6nfor1ation or one not
necessarily included in the offense charged violated his constitutional right to be infor1ed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against hi1.
"#.$
,onetheless, the CA affir1ed the trial courtBs
finding with respect to petitionerBs civil liability. The dispositive portion of the CABs February 22,
200 !ecision reads as follows>
'"EREFORE, pre1ises considered, De resolve to set aside the !ecision dated 2ay 2#, 2003 of the
)egional Trial Court, -
th
?udicial )egion, 4ranch #3, Cebu City only insofar as it found the petitioner
guilty of a cri1e that is different fro1 that charged in the 6nfor1ation. The civil liability
deter1inations are affir1ed.
SO ORDERED.
"#9$
+etitioner filed a 1otion for reconsideration which was denied in the )esolution dated August #0,
200.
7ence, petitioner co1es before us through the present +etition for )eview onCertiorari raising the
lone issue of whether he could still be held civilly liable notwithstanding his acquittal by the trial
court and the CA.
Ou( Ru)*+g
The petition is 1eritorious.
6t is an established rule in cri1inal procedure that a 8udg1ent of acquittal shall state whether the
evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or 1erely failed to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
"20$
6n either case, the 8udg1ent shall deter1ine if the act
or o1ission fro1 which the civil liability 1ight arise did not exist.
"2#$
Dhen the exoneration is
1erely 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 sa1e cri1inal action.
"22$
6n other
words, the Eextinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability unless
the extinction proceeds fro1 a declaration in a final 8udg1ent that the fact fro1 which the civil
"liability$ 1ight arise did not exist.E
"23$
7ere, the CA set aside the trial courtBs !ecision because it convicted petitioner of an offense
different fro1 or not included in the cri1e charged in the 6nfor1ation. To recall, petitioner was
charged with estafa through falsification of public docu1ent. 7owever, the )TC found that the
spouses Alonto actually signed the docu1ent although they did not personally appear before the
notary public for its notari<ation. 7ence, the )TC instead convicted petitioner of falsification of public
docu1ent. =n appeal, the CA held that petitionerBs conviction cannot be sustained because it
infringed on his right to be infor1ed of the nature and cause of the accusation against hi1.
"2/$
The
CA, however, found no reversible error on the civil liability of petitioner as deter1ined by the trial
court and thus sustained the sa1e.
"20$
De do not agree.
6n Banal v. Tadeo, Jr.,
"2$
we elucidated on the civil liability of the accused despite his exoneration in
this wise>
Dhile an act or o1ission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not
so 1uch because it is a cri1e but because it caused da1age to another. Giewing things
prag1atically, we can readily see that what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and
1oral duty of everyone to repair or 1a@e whole the da1age caused to another by reason of his own
act or o1ission, done intentionally or negligently, whether or not the sa1e be punishable by law. x
x x
*i1ply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason of his own act or o1ission, done
intentionally or negligently, causes da1age to another. 7ence, for petitioner to be civilly liable to
spouses Alonto, it 1ust be proven that the acts he co11itted had caused da1age to the spouses.
4ased on the records of the case, we find that the acts allegedly co11itted by the petitioner did not
cause any da1age to spouses Alonto.
First, the 6nfor1ation charged petitioner with fraudulently 1a@ing it appear that the spouses Alonto
affixed their signatures in the !eed of Absolute *ale thereby facilitating the transfer of the sub8ect
properties in his favor. 7owever, after the presentation of the partiesB respective evidence, the trial
court found that the charge was without basis as the spouses Alonto indeed signed the docu1ent
and that their signatures were genuine and not forged.
*econd, even assu1ing that the spouses Alonto did not personally appear before the notary public
for the notari<ation of the !eed of Absolute *ale, the sa1e does not necessarily nullify or render
void ab initio the partiesB transaction.
"2-$
*uch non'appearance is not sufficient to overco1e the
presu1ption of the truthfulness of the state1ents contained in the deed. ETo overco1e the
presu1ption, there 1ust be sufficient, clear and convincing evidence as to exclude all reasonable
controversy as to the falsity of the "deed$. 6n the absence of such proof, the deed 1ust be
upheld.E
"2.$
And since the defective notari<ation does not ipso facto invalidate the !eed of Absolute
*ale, the transfer of said properties fro1 spouses Alonto to petitioner re1ains valid. 7ence, when
on the basis of said !eed of Absolute *ale, petitioner caused the cancellation of spouses AlontoBs
title and the issuance of new ones under his na1e, and thereafter sold the sa1e to third persons,
no da1age resulted to the spouses Alonto.
2oreover, we cannot sustain the alternative sentence i1posed upon the petitioner, to wit> to
institute an action for the recovery of the properties of spouses Alonto or to pay the1 actual and
other @inds of da1ages. First, it has absolutely no basis in view of the trial courtBs finding that the
signatures of the spouses Alonto in the !eed of Absolute *ale are genuine and not forged. *econd,
E"s$entences should not be in the alternative. There is nothing in the law which per1its courts to
i1pose sentences in the alternative.E
"29$
Dhile a 8udge has the discretion of i1posing one or
another penalty, he cannot i1pose both in the alternative.
"30$
E7e 1ust fix positively and with
certainty the particular penalty.E
"3#$
6n 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 sub8ect properties to the
spouses Alonto or to pay the1 +#,#03,000.00 representing the value of the properties and to pay
the1 no1inal da1ages, exe1plary da1ages, attorneyBs fees and litigation expenses.
'"EREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The February 22, 200 !ecision of the Court of Appeals
in CA'(.). *+ ,o. -.// and its August #0, 200 )esolution areAFFIR,ED insofar as they set
aside the conviction of the petitioner for the cri1e of falsification of public docu1ent. The portion
which affir1ed the i1position of civil liabilities on the petitioner, i.e., the restoration of ownership
and possession, the pay1ent of +#,#03,000.00 representing the value of the property, and the
pay1ent of no1inal and exe1plary da1ages, attorneyBs fees and litigation expenses, is -.).t.-for
lac@ of factual and legal basis.
SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.