Case Summary (G.R. No. 165496)
Factual Background
Respondent issued Philippine National Bank Check No. 0077133 dated June 28, 1999 and postdated August 28, 1999 for P1,875,000. The check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. An Information was filed (August 31, 2000). Upon arraignment respondent pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution presented its evidence-in-chief, respondent filed, with leave of court, a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, arguing the prosecution failed to prove receipt of notice of dishonor and therefore the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise.
Trial Court Disposition and Immediate Appeal
By Order dated February 27, 2003, the MeTC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the criminal case. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner (the offended party) appealed the civil aspect to the RTC, asserting the criminal dismissal should not extinguish the civil liability. The RTC (Branch 60) initially found evidence insufficient to prove criminal guilt but not sufficient to extinguish civil liability and ordered respondent to pay P1,875,000 with legal interest. On reconsideration the RTC set aside that decision and remanded the case to the MeTC for further proceedings solely to allow the defendant to adduce evidence on the civil aspect. Petitioner then sought relief from the CA.
Court of Appeals’ Grounds for Dismissal of the Petition
The CA dismissed petitioner’s petition on procedural grounds: (1) the verification and certification of non-forum shopping did not fully comply with Rule 7 Sec. 4 as amended because it failed to assure that allegations are true and correct based on authentic records; (2) the petition lacked required supporting pleadings and material portions of the record (e.g., motion for leave to file demurrer, demurrer to evidence and opposition, MeTC order dismissing the case); (3) the RTC decision attached was an uncertified, illegible machine copy rather than a certified true copy as required by Rule 42 Sec. 2(d); and (4) petitioner failed to implead the People of the Philippines as a party-respondent. The CA accordingly denied reconsideration.
Legal Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the CA correctly dismissed petitioner’s petition for review on the identified procedural deficiencies and whether, on the merits, petitioner was entitled to relief as to the civil aspect of the case.
Verification Requirement under Rule 7 Sec. 4 — Court’s Analysis
Rule 7 Sec. 4 prescribes that a pleading required to be verified must be supported by an affidavit stating that the affiant has read the pleading and that its allegations are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records; verifications based on “information and belief” are treated as unsigned. The Court analyzed the disjunctive connector “or” in the provision and held that verification may be based on (a) personal knowledge, (b) authentic records, or (c) both. The choice among these modes depends on the nature of the allegations; where allegations rest on court records or factual occurrences outside the pleader’s personal observation (e.g., admissions at a pre-trial conference), verification based on authentic records is appropriate. Verification is not a mere formality; it secures the verity of allegations under oath and compliance should be strictly enforced, though relaxation is possible only under compelling circumstances.
Materiality of Required Attachments under Rule 42 Sec. 2(d)
Rule 42 Sec. 2(d) requires that a petition to the CA be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court. The Court found the documents actually attached to the CA petition deficient: the September 11, 2003 RTC Decision was an uncertified, illegible machine copy; the MeTC Order of February 27, 2003 (dismissing the case) was not attached as a certified duplicate original but only belatedly filed as an uncertified copy before the Supreme Court; another MeTC Order attached was likewise uncertified. Because the MeTC orders were adverse to petitioner even regarding the civil aspect, their certified copies were material and mandatory. Petitioner later supplied some documents in a motion for reconsideration but failed to comply at the time of filing the petition, and offered no compelling reason to justify relaxation of the rule.
Failure to Implead the People of the Philippines and Its Effect
The Court observed that petitioner’s failure to implead the People of the Philippines as party-respondent was immaterial to the petition since he appealed only the civil aspect. The Court reiterated the dual nature of a criminal case—criminal action (People vs. accused) and civil action (offended party vs. accused)—and confirmed that following an acquittal the prosecution generally lacks interest in pursuing the civil aspect and the offended party remains the real party in interest for the civil claim. The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy prevents the prosecution from appealing an acquittal.
Legal Principles on Demurrer to Evidence and the Civil Aspect
Under Rule 119 Sec. 23, when a demurrer to evidence is filed with leave and granted the accused is acquitted but retains the right to present evidence on the civil aspect unless the court also finds the act or omission giving rise to civil liability did not exist. If a demurrer is filed without leave, the accused waives the right to present evidence and the case is submitted for judgment on the prosecution’s evidence. The Court emphasized that a trial court cannot rationally deny a demurrer as to the criminal aspect but grant it as to the civil aspect based on differing standards of proof unless the court specifically finds the act or omission did not exist. Because the MeTC granted the demurrer without a finding that the act or omission did not exist, the civil aspect was not extinguished and proceedings on the civil aspect must continue.
Waiver of Right to Present Civil Evidence — Court’s Finding
Petitioner argued that respondent waived his right to present civil evidence either by virtue of reversal of the grant of demurrer on appeal (citing Rule 33) or by oral opposition to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The Court rejected both contentions. The Rule 33 citation was inapposite; Rule 33 pertains to civil procedure and the governing procedure in a criminal case is the Rules of Criminal Procedure. As to alleged oral waiver, the record did not show with certainty the nature of respondent’s alleged oral statements; waiver of the right to present
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 165496)
Procedural Background
- Information dated August 31, 2000 charged respondent Eung Won Choi with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing on June 28, 1999 Philippine National Bank Check No. 0077133 postdated August 28, 1999 in the amount of P1,875,000 which was dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds (ruling reported at 544 Phil. 431; G.R. No. 165496).
- Upon arraignment respondent, with counsel, pleaded "not guilty." After pre-trial the prosecution presented its evidence-in-chief.
- Respondent filed, with leave of court, a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence and attached a Demurrer to Evidence asserting the prosecution failed to prove notice of dishonor and therefore the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise (Records, pp. 234–244; citing Ting v. Court of Appeals).
- By Order dated February 27, 2003, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati, Branch 65 granted the Demurrer and dismissed the criminal case; the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Petitioner Hun Hyung Park appealed only the civil aspect of the MeTC dismissal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati (docketed Criminal Case No. 03-1836), amending his Notice of Appeal on June 2, 2003 to clarify he was appealing only insofar as the civil aspect was concerned.
- RTC, Branch 60, by Decision dated September 11, 2003, held evidence insufficient to prove criminal liability but not to extinguish civil liability; it granted petitioner’s appeal and ordered respondent to pay P1,875,000 with legal interest.
- On respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the RTC set aside its September 11, 2003 Decision and ordered the remand of the case to the MeTC "for further proceedings, so that the defendant may adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case."
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s remand was denied; petitioner filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The CA dismissed petitioner’s petition by Resolutions dated May 20, 2004 and September 28, 2004, denying reconsideration, for multiple procedural defects which petitioner then brought before the Supreme Court.
Statement of Facts (as reflected in the record)
- Respondent allegedly issued a postdated check dated August 28, 1999 (issued June 28, 1999) in the amount of P1,875,000 which was dishonored for insufficient funds.
- Respondent’s asserted defense: he allegedly borrowed P1,500,000 and the remainder of the P1,875,000 represented interest; respondent claimed to have already made a partial payment of P1,590,000.
- Petitioner disputed respondent’s claim of payments, contending those payments pertained to other transactions.
- Petitioner was not present at the pre-trial conference and thus could not, of his own personal knowledge, attest to respondent’s alleged admission at pre-trial that he had received the letter of demand (Rollo, p. 53; Records, p. 69; TSN, Aug. 1, 2001).
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA correctly dismissed petitioner’s petition for noncompliance with the verification and certification requirements prescribed by Section 4, Rule 7, Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC).
- Whether the CA correctly dismissed the petition for failure to attach copies of certain pleadings and material portions of the record required under Section 2, Rule 42, Rules of Court (e.g., Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence, Demurrer to Evidence, opposition thereto, and the MeTC February 27, 2003 Order).
- Whether the CA properly acted in light of the purportedly uncertified and illegible copy of the RTC Decision attached to the petition.
- Whether the CA was correct in finding petitioner failed to implead the People of the Philippines as party-respondent.
- Whether the remand of the case to the MeTC for receipt of evidence on the civil aspect was proper.
- Whether respondent waived his right to present evidence on the civil aspect when the demurrer was granted and later reversed on appeal, or by alleged oral opposition during petitioner’s motions.
Governing Procedural and Substantive Rules Quoted or Applied
- Rule 7, Section 4, Rules of Court (Verification):
- "A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on 'information and belief,' or upon 'knowledge, information and belief,' or lacks a proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading."
- Rule 42, Section 2(d), Rules of Court:
- Petition must "be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court."
- Rule 119, Section 23, Rules of Court (Demurrer to Evidence):
- After prosecution rests, court may dismiss on ground of insufficiency of evidence on its own initiative or upon demurrer to evidence filed with or without leave; if demurrer denied and was filed with leave, accused may adduce evidence; if filed without leave, accused waives right to present evidence and case is submitted for judgment on basis of prosecution evidence.
- Rule 111, Section 1, par. (b), Rules of Court (special note in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases):
- In a criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, no reservation to file the civil action separately shall be allowed.
- Precepts from prior jurisprudence as invoked in the decision:
- Verification defined and its importance emphasized (Grogun, Inc. v. National Power Corp.; Clavecilla v. Quitain).
- Principles on