Case Digest (G.R. No. 228739)
Facts:
The case at hand involves Rosemarie Eribal Bowden (petitioner) against Donald William Alfred Bowden (respondent), a British national. The events leading to this litigation began when the petitioner, who was the registered owner of a 2004 Mitsubishi Pajero with Plate No. FFD 228, found herself victim to her then husband’s unauthorized sale of her vehicle to Virgilio S. Ramos. This deceit occurred while she was in London, having entrusted the Original Receipt-Certificate of Registration (OR-CR) to her niece, Juvelyn Enate. During their marriage, respondent created an affidavit of loss, allegedly imitating petitioner’s signature, and submitted this to the Land Transportation Office (LTO) in Roxas City, which led to the issuance of a new OR-CR in his name. This document, along with a forged deed of sale, enabled respondent to sell the vehicle without her consent.Petitioner accused respondent of falsifying the affidavit of loss and the deed of sale, prompting the Assistant City Pr
Case Digest (G.R. No. 228739)
Facts:
- Parties and Transaction Background
- Petitioner: Rosemarie Eribal Bowden, the registered owner of a 2004 Mitsubishi Pajero with Plate No. FFD 228.
- Respondent: Donald William Alfred Bowden, a British national residing in Iloilo City, formerly married to the petitioner.
- Marital Status: Their marriage was dissolved by a Decree of Divorce dated June 12, 2006.
- Unauthorized Transfer and Document Manipulation
- Subject Vehicle and Documents
- The 2004 Mitsubishi Pajero was the subject vehicle involved in the dispute.
- Petitioner, while in London, had entrusted the Original Receipt-Certificate of Registration (OR-CR) to her niece, Juvelyn Enate.
- Alleged Unauthorized Sale
- Respondent, without petitioner’s consent, sold the subject vehicle to Virgilio S. Ramos.
- During the petitioner’s marriage to respondent, he executed an affidavit of loss for the OR-CR.
- A new OR-CR was issued in his name and was used to facilitate a deed of sale transferring the vehicle.
- Forgery Allegations
- Both the affidavit of loss and the deed of sale bore forged signatures attributed to the petitioner.
- Petitioner subsequently filed criminal complaints charging the respondent with falsification of public documents and the use of falsified documents.
- Criminal Proceedings and Evidence
- Initial Criminal Charges
- Two Informations were filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Roxas City, alleging:
- Falsification of public document by a private individual.
- Use of falsified documents.
- The charges were anchored on specific provisions of the Revised Penal Code, with detailed allegations regarding the timing and manner of the alleged acts, including notarization by Atty. Marcelo Augusto Cosgayon.
- Documentary Evidence Presented by Petitioner
- Official Receipt, Affidavit of Loss, certificates of registration, and the deed of sale were among the key documentary exhibits.
- Additional affidavits – including judicial affidavits of Florencio S. Eribal, Sr. and Rosemarie E. Bowden, and later, an amended affidavit by Juvelyn Enate – were submitted to corroborate the petitioner’s version of events.
- The petitioner also presented evidence regarding the divorce decree from Trowbridge County, Court of London, to establish the dissolution of the marriage.
- Trial Court and Appellate Proceedings
- MTCC Proceedings
- On February 26, 2014, the MTCC admitted a limited set of evidences submitted by the petitioner.
- Respondent filed a demurrer to evidence on April 4, 2014, arguing insufficiency in proving the alleged forgery and use of falsified documents.
- On May 6, 2014, the MTCC denied the demurrer, but subsequently on July 7, 2014, modified its decision by granting the demurrer to the charge of use of falsified documents and acquitting respondent on that ground.
- RTC Proceedings
- Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City on September 16, 2014, alleging grave abuse of discretion regarding the MTCC’s handling of the demurrer.
- The RTC dismissed this petition, citing the non-reviewable nature of orders denying the demurrer once final.
- A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the respondent was also denied.
- Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings
- On March 31, 2016, the CA granted the appeal asserting that the remedy of certiorari was available in cases of alleged grave abuse of discretion despite the rule on the finality of acquittal based on demurrer to evidence.
- The CA reversed and set aside the RTC order, granted the demurrer to evidence, dismissed the criminal cases (for both the affidavit of loss and the deed of sale), and acquitted the respondent.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated October 26, 2016.
- Arguments of the Parties
- Petitioner’s Arguments
- Asserted that the CA gravely erred in granting the respondent’s appeal and demurrer to evidence.
- Claimed the alleged abuse of discretion by the MTCC was not sufficient to invoke the extraordinary remedy (certiorari).
- Emphasized that the documents and other circumstantial evidences properly established the respondent’s forgery and wrongful use, which should have resulted in conviction.
- Argued that the denial of the demurrer was merely an error of judgment not subject to review by certiorari.
- Respondent’s Arguments
- Contended that the proper remedy to assail the dismissal order on demurrer is through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not under Rule 45.
- Maintained that since he was effectively acquitted by the demurrer to evidence (which precludes further prosecution), any appeal would risk double jeopardy.
- Pointed to established jurisprudence distinguishing the remedy for reviewable errors of jurisdiction (certiorari under Rule 65) from mere perceived errors of judgment.
Issues:
- Proper Remedy and Procedural Mechanism
- Whether a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to challenge the denial of the demurrer to evidence when such denial resulted in an acquittal.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim that the MTCC abused its discretion by denying the demurrer is a correctable error under Rule 45 or should have been raised via a petition under Rule 65.
- Sufficiency of Evidence and Due Process
- Whether the evidence presented by the petitioner established a prima facie case of falsification and use of falsified documents against the respondent.
- Whether the trial court’s assessment of the evidence and ultimate order granting the demurrer and dismissing the criminal cases were marred by grave abuse of discretion, or were proper applications of the law and facts.
- Double Jeopardy Implications
- Whether reversing an acquittal derived from a demurrer to evidence via an appeal would constitute a violation of the constitutional right against double jeopardy.
- Whether the dismissal order on a demurrer, considered equivalent to an acquittal, is immune from being challenged by a Rule 45 appeal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)