Case Digest (G.R. No. 166995)
Facts:
Dennis T. Villareal v. Consuelo C. Aliga, G.R. No. 166995, January 13, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 challenges the April 27, 2004 Decision and August 10, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CR No. 25581 (People of the Philippines v. Consuelo Cruz Aliga), which acquitted respondent Consuelo C. Aliga and reversed the July 12, 2001 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 147, Makati City.On October 31, 1996 an Information charged Consuelo C. Aliga, an accounting clerk employed at Dentrade, Inc., with Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document: that she allegedly altered UCPB Check No. HOF 681039 dated October 24, 1996 from P5,000.00 to P65,000.00 and appropriated P60,000.00. Dennis T. Villareal, President and General Manager of Dentrade (the private complainant), arraigned Aliga on December 6, 1996; she pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded in RTC Branch 147, Makati, with both parties presenting witnesses and documentary exhibits.
The prosecution presented testimony (Elsa Doroteo, Diosdado Corompido, Yolanda Martirez, and NBI agent John Leonard David) and documents showing that Doroteo discovered a returned check with an intercalated “6” changing P5,000.00 to P65,000.00; a bank teller confirmed encashment for P65,000.00; respondent allegedly executed a handwritten statement (Exh. D) surrendering P60,000.00; and NBI agents thereafter placed her under arrest. Corompido testified he was handed a P65,000.00 check by respondent for encashment. Aliga testified she was an assistant to the chief accountant, not in charge of Villareal’s personal checks, that several employees prepared typewritten checks, and disputed the nature of her arrest and whether NBI agents merely observed the office confrontation.
The RTC, finding Aliga guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on July 12, 2001 sentenced her to an indeterminate term (14 years, 8 months to 20 years) but absolved her from civil liability because the P60,000.00 was returned. Aliga appealed to the Court of Appeals. On April 27, 2004 the CA (De Leon, J., with Buzon and Del Castillo, JJ., concurring) reversed and acquitted her, holding (1) her admission/confession was inadmissible because it was extracted during a custodial investigation without being informed of rights, and (2) the circumstantial evidence as a whole failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. The CA denied reconsideration on August 10, 2004.
Petitioner Villareal filed the present Rule 45 petition in the Supreme Court contesting the CA’s exclusion of the confession and its evaluation of the evidence. The Office of the Solicitor Gene...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the private complainant Petitioner have standing to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to challenge a criminal acquittal?
- Was the petition for review under Rule 45 the proper remedy to assail a judgment of acquittal, or should the People have proceeded by certiorari under Rule 65?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in declaring respondent’s admission/confession inadmissible as custodial and therefore excluding it?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence was ins...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)