G.R. No. 174654 - Abellana vs. People

In 1985, petitioner Felixberto A. Abellana extended a loan to private respondents, spouses Diaga and Saapia Alonto, which was secured by a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over Lot Nos. 6471 and 6472 located in Cebu City.
Subsequently, around 1987, petitioner prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the subject lots to himself. The document was signed by the spouses Alonto in Manila but notarized in Cebu City, allegedly without the spouses appearing personally before the notary public.
Following the execution of the deed, petitioner facilitated the transfer of the titles to his name and later sold the properties to third parties.

On August 12, 1999, an Information was filed charging petitioner with Estafa through Falsification of Public Document. The accusatory portion alleged that on or about July 9, 1987, petitioner fraudulently falsified a Deed of Absolute Sale by imitating or counterfeiting the signatures of spouses Alonto.
The Information specifically charged that petitioner caused the transfer of real property titles to his name using the alleged falsified document, thereby causing damage to the spouses in the amount of P130,000.00, equal to the value of the property.
During arraignment, petitioner pleaded “not guilty” to the charges.

The RTC rendered its Decision on May 21, 2003, where the main issue was whether petitioner committed the crime of estafa through falsification of public document.
Based on evidence presented, the RTC found that:

Petitioner did not have the intent to defraud the spouses as claimed.
The spouses Alonto actually signed the Deed of Absolute Sale despite not appearing before the notary public, with the only issue being the notarization procedure.

Consequently, the RTC convicted petitioner not for estafa but for Falsification of a Public Document by a private individual under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
The judgment imposed a sentence of an indeterminate penalty of two years and four months to six years of Prision Correccional and directed petitioner to institute reconveyance proceedings and, alternatively, to pay monetary damages and other expenses.

On appeal, petitioner raised the issue of whether he could be convicted for a crime not charged in the Information, namely, whether he could be convicted for Falsification of Public Document when charged with estafa through falsification of a public document.
In its Decision dated February 22, 2006, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that:

An accused acquitted of the charged offense cannot be convicted for another offense not necessarily included in the charge.
The conviction based on a different ground violated the petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

However, the CA affirmed the trial court’s findings regarding petitioner’s civil liability.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in the Resolution dated August 15, 2006, leading to the present Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the imposition of civil liabilities despite his acquittal on the criminal offense.

Whether an accused who is charged with one offense may be convicted for another offense not specifically charged or necessarily included in the Information.
Whether the conviction for an offense different from what was charged violates the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

Whether petitioner can still be held civilly liable despite his acquittal on the criminal aspect (i.e., failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged).
Whether the acts committed by petitioner caused any damage to the spouses Alonto sufficient to impose the ordered civil liabilities, including the restoration of property ownership and payment of damages.