Case Summary (G.R. No. L-34666)
Applicable Law
- Relevant Provisions: Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 122, and Article 29 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Mercedes L. Javellana, initiated a criminal complaint for estafa against Itong Amistad, who was accused of selling a parcel of land twice without disclosing a prior agreement made with the petitioner. The case was heard and resulted in the acquittal of the respondent due to insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with the trial court stating that the prosecution's case was essentially civil in nature.
Nature of the Decision
The acquittal was appealed by the petitioner solely concerning the respondent's civil liability. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, highlighting that an appeal from a judgment of acquittal cannot proceed, as that would require reassessment of criminal liability. The Court cited precedents that established the principle prohibiting such appeals to prevent double jeopardy.
Legal Principles Considered
The petitioner argued that under Section 2, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, the offended party may appeal judgements against substantial rights if the accused is acquitted. She also pointed to Article 29 of the Civil Code, asserting that an acquittal does not extinguish civil liability arising from the same act if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt. Further, she indicated that her civil claim was impliedly included with the criminal action since she did not reserve her right to file a separate civil suit.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court reiterated that while a civil action for damages can be instituted separately from the criminal case if the civil aspect is not resolved, the judgments in criminal matters are significant. An acquittal not only resolves the criminal charges but also rejects liability for civil damages related to the same offense unless there is clear reservation. The Court maintained that Article 29 mandates the initiation of a separate civil action when the accused is acquitted on grounds other than an absence of civil wrongdoing.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the Cour
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-34666)
Background of the Case
- The case revolves around a petition for certiorari questioning the legality of an appeal made by the complainant in a criminal action for estafa following an acquittal of the accused, Itong Amistad.
- The original criminal case was filed in the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet, under an information accusing Amistad of estafa as defined under Article 316, Paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code.
- The complaint detailed multiple transactions involving the sale of land, wherein the accused allegedly sold portions of a property without disclosing a prior agreement with Mercedes L. Javellana, leading to her financial loss of P5,000.00.
Proceedings and Judgment of the Trial Court
- After a trial, the Court issued a decision on February 8, 1971, acquitting Amistad, stating the prosecution's case was civil in nature and that Amistad's guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The trial court's ruling emphasized that the civil liability of the accused was not established in the criminal proceedings.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- Following the acquittal, Javellana appealed to the Court of Appeals specifically regarding the civil liability aspect of the case.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, asserting that the offended party cannot appeal from a judgment of acquittal. This dismissal was based on legal precedent.
Legal Provisions Cited
- Javellana relied on various legal provisions to support her argument, including:
- Section 2, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court: This section indicate