Facts:

The case involves Jorge E. Auro, represented by his heirs Jomar O. Auro and Marjorie O. Auro-Gonzales as petitioners against Johanna A. Yasis, represented by Achilles A. Yasis as the respondent. The legal dispute centers around a charge of falsification of a public document under the Revised Penal Code in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Mercedes, Camarines Norte. The allegation arose from an incident that occurred on January 7, 2005, where Jorge allegedly falsified a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale by making it appear that Johanna, who was residing in the United States at the time, participated in the transaction as a vendor. The MTC found Jorge guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. Jorge appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which, in January 2018, acquitted him on the grounds that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the genuineness of Johanna’s signature, applying the principle of equipoise. However, the RTC ruled that the notarial a

...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Jorge E. Auro, originally charged and later represented by his heirs, Jomar O. Auro and Marjorie O. Auro-Gonzales, after his death.
• Respondent: Johanna A. Yasis, represented by Achilles A. Yasis.

The Underlying Criminal Charge

• Crime Charged: Falsification of a public document – specifically, a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale.
• Relevant Provisions:
• Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) concerning falsification by a private individual.
• Article 171 of the RPC pertaining to falsification by public officers or employees, including certain testimonies involving notaries.
• Allegation Details:
• It was alleged that on or about January 7, 2005, at Brgy. Del Rosario in the Municipality of Mercedes, Camarines Norte, Jorge and his co-conspirators falsely executed a deed by affixing Johanna’s signature, thereby creating the appearance that she participated as vendor in a sale of a 2.5000 hectares fishpond.
• It was contended that Johanna never participated in the creation, execution, or signing of the said deed because she was residing in the United States at that time.
• As a consequence, the tax declaration originally in Johanna’s name was cancelled and reissued in favor of Jorge, causing damage and prejudice to the private complainant.

Proceedings in the Lower Courts

• Municipal Trial Court (MTC):
• In a Decision dated June 21, 2017, the MTC found Jorge guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the falsification charge.
• Penalties imposed included imprisonment (ranging from four months and one day of arresto mayor to three years, six months and 21 days of prision correccional) and a fine of ₱1,000.00.
• Co-accused Fred Cornelio was acquitted by the court for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt.
• Jorge’s motion for reconsideration with the MTC was denied.
• Regional Trial Court (RTC):
• Jorge appealed the MTC decision, and on January 31, 2018, the RTC rendered a Decision acquitting him of the criminal charge on the ground that the prosecution did not prove the genuineness or falsity of Johanna’s signature beyond reasonable doubt.
• Nonetheless, the RTC ordered the cancellation of the tax declaration issued in Jorge’s name, ruling that the alleged Deed of Sale was mere private evidence that, being defective, could not cause a change in ownership.
• The RTC found that although the notary public who notarized the deed was uncommissioned, the prosecution failed to adduce a handwriting expert to resolve issues regarding the signature's authenticity.
• Court of Appeals (CA):
• On September 27, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling, denying Jorge’s appeal.
• The CA’s decision reiterated that the balance of evidence favored Jorge concerning the criminal charge—filing him under the equipoise doctrine—and yet validated the cancellation of the tax declaration as necessitated by the defective notarization of the Deed of Sale.
• The CA noted that the evidence established the notarial part was executed by an unlicensed notary public (Atty. David S. EAano, Jr.) and highlighted procedural discrepancies on the date of issuance of Johanna’s Community Tax Certificate versus the notarization date.
• Subsequent Developments:
• Jorge’s death led to his substitution by his lawful heirs in the appeal proceedings.
• The case centered not only on the question of a criminal conviction but also on the civil aspect arising from the erroneous transfer of ownership effected through the defective document.

Issue:

Main Issue Raised by Petitioners

• Whether the lower courts – both at the RTC and CA – committed a serious error by including the cancellation of the tax declaration in the adjudication of a criminal case for falsification of a public document.
• Whether the cancellation of the tax declaration, which is inherently a civil remedy for restitution and damages, should have been decided in a separate civil proceeding rather than in conjunction with a criminal action.

Underlying Questions

• Whether the cancellation of the tax declaration is justified as a concomitant civil liability arising from the alleged offense, notwithstanding the acquittal on the criminal charge based on the doctrine of reasonable doubt.
• Whether the civil liability for restitution and indemnification—including the cancellation of the tax declaration—can coexist with an acquittal in the criminal aspect of the case.

Procedural Considerations

• Whether the petitioners, by appealing the civil aspect of the criminal decision while simultaneously contesting the civil remedy instituted de novo with the prosecution proceedings, have misconstrued the procedural character of civil actions ancillary to criminal cases.
• Whether the failure to reserve the right to institute a separate civil proceeding before the commencement of the criminal evidence resulted in the compelled inclusion of civil liability in the criminal case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)