G.R. No. 123340 - Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

The City Prosecutor of Manila charged petitioner Lutgarda Cruz with estafa through falsification of a public document for executing an affidavit of self-adjudication as sole heir of a parcel of land in Bulacan, despite knowing of other surviving heirs.
Civil liability was deemed instituted in the criminal case since the offended party did not reserve the right to file a separate civil action.

On January 17, 1994, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 53, acquitted Cruz on the ground of reasonable doubt, but rendered judgment on the civil aspect, ordering restitution of the land to the true heirs, cancellation of petitioner’s title, and reissuance in the heirs’ names.
Petitioner received a copy of the decision on January 28, 1994, and on February 10, 1994 filed, by registered mail, a motion for reconsideration (dated February 7, 1994) challenging only the civil aspect. No proof of service (affidavit and registry receipt) was attached.

On April 18, 1994, the RTC denied the first motion for reconsideration for lack of proof of service on the public prosecutor, ruling the decision final and executory.
On May 6, 1994, the RTC denied petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration as prohibited under the Interim Rules (no second motion of a final order).

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to nullify the two RTC orders and compel resolution of her first motion for reconsideration.
On March 31, 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for insufficiency in substance, upholding both RTC orders and the civil-liability judgment.
On December 1, 1995, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the public prosecutor was not duly and timely furnished with a copy of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on the civil aspect.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction to render judgment on the civil aspect of the criminal case involving property located in Bulacan.
Whether petitioner was denied due process when the RTC rendered its decision on the civil aspect without proper service or notice.