The petitioner in this case is Felixberto A.

Abellana who was charged for the crime of falsification of

public document.

That sometime, in 1985 the petitioner extended a loan to private respondents spouses Alonto by real
Mortgage. Subsequently, the petitioner prepared a deed of absolute sale conveying said lots to him.
However, the deed of sale was signed by the spouses Alonto in Manila but it was notarized in Cebu
City without appearing the spouses. Thereafter, petitioner caused the transfer of the titles to his name
and sold the lots to third persons.

Hence, the petitioner was charged by falsification of public document.

However, during the trial the petitioner, pleaded not guilty, and the RTC noted that the main issue
was whether the petitioner’s committed by the crime of estafa through falsification of public
document. Based on the evidence presented by both parties, the trial court found that petitioner
did not intent to defraud the spouses; that after the latter failed to pay their obligation,
petitioner prepared a deed of absolute sale was notarized without the spouses Alonto appearing
personally before the notary public.

Hence the RTC concluded that petitioner can only be held guilty of Falsification of a public document
by a private individual under art. 172(1) in relation to art. 171(2) of the RPC which penalized 2 years
and four months to 6 years as maximum.

On appeal to the C.A. he raised the issue of whether an accused who was acquitted of the crime
changed may nevertheless be convicted of another crime or offense not specifically charged and
alleged which is not necessarily included in the crime or offense charged.

The C.A. ruled in negative. That the petitioner who was charged and arraigned for estafa through
falsification of public documents under 1art. 171 (1) and art. 172(2) RPC could not be convicted of
falsification of public document by a private individual.

Thus the C.A. opined that the conviction of the of the petitioner for an offense not alleged in the
information or one not necessarily included in the offense charged violated his constitutional rights, to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

The C.A. found the petitioner is guilty of a crime that is different from that charged in the
information. The C.A. lifted the imprisonment but affirmed the civil liability of the petitioner.

Issue: Whether the petitioner could still held be liable notwithstanding his acquittal by the C.A.
?

Held. No. It is an established rule in criminal procedure that a judgment of acquittal shall state
whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely
failed to prove his guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Where in this case, the judgment shall determine
if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
When the exoneration is merely due to failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, the court should award the civil liability in favor of the offended party in the same criminal
action. In other words, the extinction of the penal action does not carry with the extinction of civil
liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which
the civil liability might arise did not exist.

The Court cited the case Banal vs. Tadeo, that an act or omission is felonious because it punishable by
law, it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it caused damage to another. That what gives
rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and moral duty of every one to repair or make whole
the damage caused to another by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently,
whether or not the same punishable by law.

Civil liability arises when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently,
caused damage to another. Hence, for petitioner to be civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be
proven that the acts he committed had caused damage to another.

But based on the records of the case, the Court find that the acts allegedly committed by the
petitioner did not cause to damage to spouses.

Hence, the petition is granted. The petitioner must be acquitted of the crime.