9/13/2019 Case Brief: Abellana v People and Spouses Alonto | The Welfare Of the People Shall Be The Supreme

le Shall Be The Supreme Law

1 Cup Of This At Bedtime…

The Welfare Of the People Shall Be The Supreme
Law

a repository of my notes from law school

Case Brief: Abellana v People and Spouses Alonto

JANUARY 11, 2017 ⁄ JEFF REY

G.R. No. 174654

Felixberto Abellana

v.

People & Spouses Alonto

FACTS:

An Information was filed charging petitioner with Estafa through Falsification of Public Document in
connection with a Deed of Sale over a certain parcel of land owned by the spouses Alonto. After trial in
the RTC, the trial court found that petitioner had no intention to defraud and that the spouses Alonto
actually signed the document although they did not personally appear before the notary public for its
notarization. Hence, the RTC instead convicted petitioner of falsification of public document. The trial
court sentenced petitioner with imprisonment, ordered him to restore full ownership and possession of
the land to Sps. Alonto, and in case of his failure to do so, he shall pay Sps. Alonto the value of the
properties. He was further adjudged to pay damages and costs of suit to Sps. Alonto. On appeal, CA
acqui ed petitioner as it opined that the conviction for an offense not alleged in the Information or one
not necessarily included in the offense charged violated petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Nevertheless, the imposition of the civil liability
was sustained. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, a
Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court.

ISSUES:

1. W.O.N. petitioner could still be held civilly liable notwithstanding his acqui al by the trial court and
the CA?

2. W.O.N. the alternative sentence imposed by the trial court to petitioner should be sustained?

https://jeffsarabusing.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/case-brief-abellana-v-people-and-spouses-alonto/ 1/3
9/13/2019 Case Brief: Abellana v People and Spouses Alonto | The Welfare Of the People Shall Be The Supreme Law

HELD:

1. No. It is an established rule in criminal procedure that a judgment of acqui al shall state whether the
evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either 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 the 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 it 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. In case of
exoneration of the accused, the civil liability may still arise when one, by reason of his own act or
omission, done intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another. Hence, for petitioner to be civilly
liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the acts he commi ed had caused damage to the
spouses. Based on the records of the case, Court found that the acts allegedly commi ed by the
petitioner did not cause any damage to spouses Alonto. Moreover, the defective notarization does not
ipso facto invalidate the Deed of Absolute Sale, the transfer of said properties from spouses Alonto to
petitioner remains valid. Hence, when on the basis of said Deed of Absolute Sale, petitioner caused the
cancellation of spouses Alonto’s title and the issuance of new ones under his name, and thereafter sold
the same to third persons, no damage resulted to the spouses Alonto.

2. No. the Court cannot sustain the alternative sentence imposed upon the petitioner, to wit: to institute
an action for the recovery of the properties of spouses Alonto or to pay them actual and other kinds of
damages. Sentences should not be in the alternative. There is nothing in the law which permits courts to
impose sentences in the alternative. While a judge has the discretion of imposing one or another penalty,
he cannot impose both in the alternative. He must fix positively and with certainty the particular
penalty.

Wherefore, Petition granted.

Advertisements REPORT THIS AD

1 Cup Of This At Bedtime…

REPORT THIS AD
Categories: Case Digests, Civil Law, Criminal Law, Remedial Law and Legal Ethics Tags: 174654,
abellana, alonto, alternative sentence, criminal procedure, damages, estafa

BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.

https://jeffsarabusing.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/case-brief-abellana-v-people-and-spouses-alonto/ 2/3
9/13/2019 Case Brief: Abellana v People and Spouses Alonto | The Welfare Of the People Shall Be The Supreme Law

REPORT THIS AD

https://jeffsarabusing.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/case-brief-abellana-v-people-and-spouses-alonto/ 3/3