Title
Supreme Court
Bowden vs. Bowden
Case
G.R. No. 228739
Decision Date
Jul 17, 2019
A wife accused her ex-husband of forging documents to sell her vehicle without consent. Courts acquitted him, citing insufficient evidence and improper legal remedy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 228739)

Factual Antecedents

The Petitioner was the registered owner of the 2004 Mitsubishi Pajero, which was purportedly sold by the Respondent to Virgilio S. Ramos without her authorization. The Respondent executed an affidavit of loss regarding the vehicle's certificate of registration and original receipt, which was later found to bear a forged signature of the Petitioner. This fraudulent action allowed the Respondent to obtain a new certificate of registration in his name and subsequently conduct a sale of the vehicle. The Petitioner initiated criminal complaints against the Respondent for falsification of public documents.

Criminal Charges Initiated

On August 28, 2006, two Informations were filed against the Respondent for the crimes of falsification of public documents and use of falsified documents. The complaints alleged that the Respondent had knowingly executed documents bearing the forged signature of the Petitioner and had presented these to the Land Transportation Office (LTO), which resulted in the wrongful issuance of new vehicle registration documents.

Trial and Presentation of Evidence

The trial commenced with the Petitioner offering various pieces of documentary evidence related to her ownership of the vehicle, including the original receipt and the affidavit of loss. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) initially admitted some of Petitioner’s evidence. However, the Respondent later filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that the Petitioner had failed to provide sufficient evidence proving the charges against him, including failing to present original copies of the forged documents.

MTCC Rulings

On May 6, 2014, the MTCC denied the Respondent's demurrer, acknowledging that while the evidence presented by the Petitioner was insufficient to prove falsification, the Respondent still bore the burden of explaining the vehicle's transfer and sale. Following a motion for reconsideration by the Respondent, the MTCC subsequently granted the demurrer and acquitted the Respondent regarding the charge of falsification.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTCC's decision and noted that the order denying the demurrer was not reviewable via certiorari. However, the appeal moved to the Court of Appeals (CA), which found that the MTCC had committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the demurrer, thereby ruling in favor of the Respondent. The CA dismissed the criminal cases against the Respondent, which included the charges of using falsified documents.

Petitioner’s Appeal

The Petitioner challenged the CA’s decision by arguing that the grant of Respondent’s demurrer was erroneous as it constituted a perceived error of judgment not correctable by certiorari. She maintained that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed to uphold the charges against the Respondent.

Respondent's Arguments

The Respondent contended that the correct legal remedy for challenging the dismissal of the criminal case should have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. He further argued that the evidence presented by the Petitioner was insufficient to establish the charges against him and emphasized that the existence of the driver's license and registration documents did not implicate him in wrongdoing.

Court’s Ruling and Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court held t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.