Case Summary (G.R. No. 123340)
Antecedent Facts
- Petitioner executed before a Manila notary an affidavit declaring herself sole heir of the registered land, knowing of other heirs.
- The City Prosecutor charged her with estafa through falsification of a public document.
- Offended party did not reserve the right to bring a separate civil action; thus, the civil aspect was deemed part of the criminal case.
- On January 17, 1994, RTC Branch 53 acquitted petitioner on reasonable doubt but ordered restitution of the Bulacan land to the true heirs.
Trial Court Proceedings on Reconsideration
– January 28, 1994: Petitioner formally received the RTC decision.
– February 10, 1994: Petitioner mailed a motion for reconsideration (dated February 7) challenging only the civil-liability ruling, sending copies to the RTC and City Prosecutor by registered mail.
– April 18, 1994: RTC denied the motion for lack of proof of service on the Prosecutor, ruling its decision final and executory.
– May 6, 1994: RTC denied petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration as prohibited under the Interim Rules (no second reconsideration permitted).
Court of Appeals Decision
– March 31, 1995: CA dismissed petitioner’s certiorari and mandamus petition as insufficient in substance, upholding both RTC orders:
• Lack of proof (affidavit and registry receipt) of service by registered mail under Rule 13, Sec. 10.
• Second reconsideration barred as untimely and unauthorized.
• RTC had jurisdiction to adjudicate civil liability and order restitution of land outside its territorial bounds under criminal procedure rules.
– December 1, 1995: CA denied reconsideration of its dismissal.
Issues on Review
- Whether petitioner’s motion for reconsideration complied with the proof-of-service requirements of Rule 15, Sec. 6 and Rule 13, Sec. 10.
- Whether the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction to adjudicate the civil aspect (restitution) for property in Bulacan.
- Whether denial of the motion deprived petitioner of due process.
Supreme Court Ruling and Rationale
Proof of Service Defect
– Rule 15, Sec. 6 mandates proof of service before any motion is acted upon; Rule 13, Sec. 10 requires both an affidavit of mailing and the registry receipt for registered-mail service.
– Petitioner failed to attach either document to her February 1994 motion; the motion was thus a “mere scrap of paper” and did not toll the 15-day period.
– Non-compliance is fatal; a motion lacking proof of service is not entitled to judicial cognizance.
– Present Rules do not expressly require service on an unrepresented offended party when the accused moves for reconsideration; to fill this gap, the Court now requires such service in future cases.
– In fairness, petitioner is granted five days from receipt of this decision to serve a copy of her motion on the offended party.RTC’s Jurisdiction over Civil Liability
– A court with jurisdiction over the subject matter, the person of the accused,
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 123340)
Antecedent Facts
- The City Prosecutor of Manila charged petitioner with estafa through falsification of a public document before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 53 (Criminal Case No. 87-57743).
- Petitioner executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication before a Notary Public, claiming to be the sole surviving heir of the registered owner, despite knowing of other heirs.
- The offended party did not reserve the right to file a separate civil action; hence, the civil action was deemed instituted in the criminal case.
- After trial on the merits, the RTC acquitted petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt (Decision dated January 17, 1994) but, in the same decision, ordered the restitution of the disputed parcel of land in Bulacan to the surviving heirs.
Post-Judgment Motions in the RTC
- Petitioner received a copy of the RTC Decision on January 28, 1994.
- On February 10, 1994, she filed, by registered mail, a Motion for Reconsideration dated February 7, 1994, challenging only the civil aspect of the verdict. She likewise mailed a copy to the City Prosecutor.
- The RTC denied this Motion on April 18, 1994 for lack of proof that the City Prosecutor was served within the 15-day reglementary period, rendering the decision final and executory.
- Petitioner filed a second Motion for Reconsideration (dated April 22, 1994), which the RTC denied on May 6, 1994 under Interim Rule 13, Sec. 4, barring a second motion against a final order or judgment.
Petition to the Court of Appeals
- Petitioner sought certiorari and mandamus relief to nullify the two RTC orders and to compel resolution of her February 7, 1994 Motion for Reconsideration.
- On March 31, 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for being insufficient in substance.
- The CA upheld the April 18 order: noting absence of both the mailer’s affidavit and the registry receipt required under Rule 13, Sec. 10 (now Sec. 1