Case Summary (G.R. No. 117512)
Factual Background
Rebecca, Susan, and Leticia were sisters, while Atty. Oscar Ala was their brother. In December 1994, Rebecca designated Atty. Oscar Ala as her attorney-in-fact, authorizing him to withdraw specified amounts from her Dollar Savings Account No. 01-772300-20 at the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, for purposes of paying the amortizations for a residential lot she purchased in 1985. Atty. Oscar Ala suggested that she transfer the dollar deposit to the Prudential Bank on Quezon Avenue, where his wife, Marilene, and his sister, Susan Ala-Quimbo, worked. Rebecca agreed.
Rebecca later inquired with the Prudential Bank and was informed that her money—amounting to $19,245.20 or P500,500.00 at the then prevailing exchange rate—was not deposited there. The prosecution narrative reflected what actually transpired: Atty. Oscar Ala withdrew Rebecca’s dollars (via a bank draft) from the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and delivered the same to his wife, Marilene. Marilene then delivered the bank draft to her sister Susan Ala-Quimbo for deposit with the Prudential Bank. Instead of following Oscar’s instruction, Marilene and Susan entrusted the bank draft to Josefina Rey, an employee of the China Banking Corporation, supposedly to earn a higher interest rate. Josefina Rey, however, absconded with the money.
Believing that spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala and Susan Ala-Quimbo connived in appropriating her money for their own benefit, Rebecca demanded that they return the amount through her sister Atty. Leticia Ala, but the demand failed. Consequently, Rebecca caused the filing of the criminal action for estafa.
Filing of the Criminal Case and Proceedings in the RTC
Rebecca initiated Criminal Case No. Q-92-30266 for estafa against spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala and Susan Ala-Quimbo. The accused were arraigned and trial commenced. Upon motion of the prosecution, the RTC reversed the order of trial and directed the defense to present its evidence first, followed by the prosecution. The RTC did so on the premise that the charge of estafa was established by the Joint Counter Affidavit of the spouses Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo and the spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala.
The defense relied on admissions contained in their Joint Counter Affidavit. Spouses Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo admitted receiving Rebecca’s money from Marilene Ala for the purpose of depositing it with the China Banking Corporation to earn a higher rate of interest, while stating that Josefina Rey misappropriated the money. In their own Joint Counter Affidavit, spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala explained that Oscar withdrew $19,245.20 from the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank and gave it to Marilene, who later delivered it to Susan for deposit with the Prudential Bank on Quezon Avenue.
The defense filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court denied. At the hearing on March 3, 1993, instead of presenting evidence in the reversed order, the defense manifested that the accused were waiving their right to present evidence. The private prosecutor then manifested that he would present evidence to prove the accused’s civil liability impliedly instituted with the criminal action. The defense objected. On April 12, 1993, the RTC allowed the prosecution to prove civil liability.
During June 2, 1993, Rebecca testified mainly on the civil aspect. She identified documentary exhibits: Exhibit “A”, a certification dated February 9, 1987 by Manuel A. Quimbo undertaking to pay Rebecca $19,245.20; Exhibit “B”, the Joint Counter Affidavit of spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala; and Exhibit “C”, the Joint Counter Affidavit of spouses Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo. On June 10, 1993, the prosecution rested and formally offered these documentary evidence, which the RTC admitted. The defense did not present testimony and instead offered the prosecution’s Exhibit “A” as its Exhibit “1”, insisting that any undertaking to pay Rebecca was conditioned on the accused’s ability to collect the amounts involved in their criminal and civil cases against Josefina Rey.
Assailed Decision and Petitioner’s Resort to Certiorari
On September 27, 1994, the RTC acquitted the accused—Susan Quimbo, Marilene D. Ala, and Atty. Manuel S. Quimbo—on reasonable doubt. It nevertheless held them civilly liable to Rebecca for $19,250.21 or its peso equivalent at the floating exchange rate, with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from the filing of the case. The RTC further directed them to pay out of proceeds from real properties of Josefina Rey already adjudged in Civil Case No. Q-49886 in favor of the defendants.
Rebecca filed the present petition for certiorari, primarily arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it disregarded and did not give weight to the Joint Counter Affidavits, Exhibits “B” and “C”, contending that they were judicial admissions proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Parties’ Contentions
Rebecca argued that the RTC’s refusal to consider the Joint Counter Affidavits violated the evidentiary effect of judicial admissions, which, according to her, established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Solicitor General, representing the State’s position, contended that the RTC’s refusal to consider Exhibits “B” and “C” in determining guilt violated the State’s fundamental right to due process.
Legal Issue and the Scope of Certiorari
The principal issue was whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting the accused. The Court emphasized that, in an action for certiorari, the inquiry should remain limited to questions of jurisdiction. It reiterated the standard that certiorari requires clear and convincing proof of patent and gross abuse of discretion equivalent to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act in an arbitrary and despotic manner. It further explained that grave abuse of discretion means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and that mere errors of judgment or law are not correctible by certiorari when jurisdiction exists.
Ruling of the Court
The Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disregarding Exhibits “B” and “C”. The Court found that the reason for the RTC’s treatment of those documents related to the absence of a proper evidentiary predicate, and it sustained the RTC’s view that the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proof required for criminal conviction.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court agreed with the RTC’s rationale that Exhibits “B” and “C” were not formally offered in evidence by the prosecution for the purpose of proving culpability in the criminal aspect. The RTC observed that nothing in the record showed that, after the defense waived presentation of evidence, the prosecution made an offer in any form sufficient to demonstrate readiness and willingness to submit its evidence to prove the accused’s culpability. The trial court stated that, in the absence of such showing, its judgment had to rest on evidence offered by the parties at trial.
In support of this evidentiary rule, the Court invoked Ong vs. Court of Appeals, explaining that evidence not formally offered during trial could not be used for or against a party, nor considered on appeal. It referenced Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the court shall consider no evidence not formally offered. The Court reasoned that a formal offer is necessary because judges must base findings of fact and judgments solely on evidence offered by the parties. Allowing parties to attach documents to pleadings without formal offer, the Court noted, would deny the opposing party the opportunity to examine and object to admissibility, while also complicating appellate review of documents not scrutinized by the trial court.
The Court held that the prosecution bore the burden of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and it concluded that the prosecution failed to formally offer its documentary evidence. Although the prosecution offered the documents during the portion of the hearing on civil liability, the Court treated this as insufficient to cure the deficiency for purposes of criminal conviction.
The Court also found another reason supporting acquittal. After the accused were arraigned on June 24, 1992, the prosecution moved that Atty. Oscar Ala be ordered to testify to prove the transaction between Marilene and Rebecca. The RTC granted the motion. On October 1, 1992, Marilene moved to expunge Atty. Oscar Ala’s testimony and discharge him as witness un
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 117512)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Rebecca Ala-Martin filed a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 98, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-92-30266, titled “People of the Philippines vs. Marilene D. Ala, et al.” for estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
- The RTC acquitted Marilene Ala, Manuel Quimbo, and Susan Ala-Quimbo, yet found them civilly liable to private complainant Rebecca Ala-Martin for $19,250.21 or its equivalent in Philippine peso, with interest.
- Ala-Martin argued that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it acquitted the accused.
- The petition was dismissed by the Court for lack of grave abuse of discretion.
Key Factual Allegations
- Rebecca Ala-Martin authorized Atty. Oscar Ala as her attorney-in-fact to withdraw funds from her Dollar Savings Account No. 01-772300-20 to pay amortizations for a residential lot purchased in 1985.
- Atty. Oscar Ala suggested transferring Rebecca’s dollar deposit to the Prudential Bank in Quezon Avenue, where his wife Marilene and his sister Susan Ala-Quimbo worked.
- Rebecca later discovered that her money, stated as $19,245.20 (or P500,500.00 at the then current exchange rate), was not deposited in the Prudential Bank.
- The actual transaction involved Atty. Oscar Ala withdrawing Rebecca’s dollars via bank draft from the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and giving the draft to Marilene, who then delivered it to Susan Ala-Quimbo for deposit with the Prudential Bank, Quezon Avenue Branch.
- Instead of depositing the draft as instructed, Marilene and Susan entrusted the bank draft to Josefina Rey, an employee of the China Banking Corporation, to earn a higher interest rate.
- Josefina Rey absconded with the money, prompting criminal and civil filings by spouses Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo.
- Believing that Oscar and Marilene Ala and Susan Ala-Quimbo connived in appropriating her money, Rebecca demanded repayment, which did not occur.
- Rebecca caused the filing of the RTC case for estafa against spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala and Susan Ala-Quimbo.
- The RTC acquitted the accused on reasonable doubt but imposed civil liability on the acquitted accused, directing payment from whatever proceeds they derived.
Antecedent Proceedings in the RTC
- After arraignment, the prosecution moved that the defense present evidence first, based on the trial judge’s finding that the charge of estafa was established by the Joint Counter Affidavit of spouses Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo and that of spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala.
- In the Joint Counter Affidavit (Exhibit “C”), spouses Manuel and Susan admitted receiving Rebecca’s money for depositing with the China Banking Corporation to earn higher interest, while Josefina Rey misappropriated it.
- In the Joint Counter Affidavit (Exhibit “B”), Oscar and Marilene alleged that Oscar withdrew Rebecca’s money and gave it to his wife Marilene, who delivered it to Susan for deposit with the Prudential Bank, Quezon Avenue Branch.
- The defense filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court denied.
- During the hearing on March 3, 1993, the defense manifested waiver of the right to present evidence, and the private prosecutor manifested intent to present evidence to prove implied civil liability instituted with the criminal action.
- The defense objected to the prosecution’s intended course, yet on April 12, 1993 the trial court allowed the prosecution to prove civil liability of the accused.
- On June 2, 1993, Rebecca testified mainly on the civil aspect and identified Exhibit “A” (a Certification dated February 9, 1987 of Manuel A. Quimbo undertaking payment of $19,245.20), Exhibit “B” (the Joint Counter Affidavit of Oscar and Marilene), and Exhibit “C” (the Joint Counter Affidavit of Manuel and Susan).
- On June 10, 1993, the prosecution rested its case and formally offered the documentary evidence which were admitted by the trial court.
- The defense did not present testimonial evidence and instead offered the prosecution’s Exhibit “A” as Exhibit “1”, emphasizing that the undertaking to pay was conditional on the accused’s ability to collect amounts in their cases against Josefina Rey.
- On September 27, 1994, the RTC rendered a decision acquitting the accused on reasonable doubt but holding them civilly liable for $19,250.21 (equivalent in Philippine c