Case Digest (G.R. No. 91896)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Fourth Division and Julieta G. Ando, G.R. No. 198589, July 25, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The private complainant, Willie Tee (Tee), filed the criminal information that led to the prosecution of respondent Julieta G. Ando for three counts of falsification of public documents under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 26, presided by Judge Jorge Emmanuel M. Lorredo, found Ando guilty in a Decision promulgated on May 2, 2008; the trial court concluded that documents (a Deed of Sale, an Affidavit, and a Transfer of Rights) were falsified because they purportedly bore the signature and thumb mark of Tee’s father, Tee Ong, who had died on December 15, 1995, yet the documents were notarized on January 31, 1996. The MeTC also relied on Ando’s possession and use of the documents to transfer the business name To Suy Hardware to her.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 34 (Judge Romulo A. Lopez), affirmed the MeTC in a Decision dated November 6, 2008, finding the falsity of the documents undisputed and attributing responsibility to Ando. Ando then took her appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), Fourth Division (CA-G.R. CR No. 32680). In a Decision dated July 28, 2011 (penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo), the CA reversed and set aside the RTC and MeTC convictions and acquitted Ando, reasoning that the prosecution failed to prove forgery: no expert comparison of signatures was presented and the notarization after Tee Ong’s death did not preclude the possibility that Tee Ong had signed the documents before he died; any irregularity in notarization should be imputed to the notary public rather than to Ando.
Dissatisfied, Tee (who stated he was filing under the authority and supervision of the Office of the Solicitor General) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court challenging the CA’s acquittal for alleged grave abuse of discretion. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion adopting Tee’s petition. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition on the groun...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 a proper vehicle to assail the Court of Appeals’ acquittal of Julieta G. Ando, or does the rule against double jeopardy bar review?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the trial courts and acquitting Ando on the evidence presented (i.e., was the acquittal so tainted that cer...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)