You are on page 1of 1

Abellana v People Facts: In 1985, Petitioner extended a loan to private respondents spouses Diaga and Saapia to which was

secured by a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, two parcel of land located in Cebu City. On 1987, petitioner prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying said lots to him to which was signed by the private respondent spouses in Manila. However, it was notarized in Cebu without the presence of private respondents. On August 12, 1999, an information was files charging the petitioner with Estafa through falsification of Public Document. Petitioner pleaded not guilty, the trial court rendered the decision finding the petitioner guilty of Falsification of a Public Document and not of the crime charge under the information. He was directed to return the properties to the spouses and to pay a sum of P 130,000 with legal interests, nominal damages, attorney's fees, litigation expense and exemplary damages, plus cost of the suit. Petitioner upon appeal raised the issue whether an accused acquitted of the crime charged may nevertheless convicted of another crime or offense not specifically charged in the information. CA reversed the decision that it violated the constitutional right of the petitioner to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. However, the CA affirmed the trial courts decision with respect to the civil liability. Hence this petition. Issue: Whether of not the CA erred in finding the petitioner civilly liable nothwithstanding his acquittal by the RTC and CA. Held: Civil liability arises when one, by reason of is own act or ommission, done intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another. Hence, for the petitioner to be held civillly liable it must be proven that he had caused damage to the spouses. The Supreme Court ruled that no damages was inflicted upon the the spouses. The evidence showed that the signature of the spouses was genuine and not forged. The non-appearance before a notary public does not render the Deed of Absolute Sale void, and is not sufficient to overcome the truthfulness of the statements contained in the deed. There mus be a clear and convincing evidence as to exclude alll reasonable controversy as to the falsity of the deed. Supreme court finds no basis on the imposition of the actual and other kinds of damages upon the petitioner. Sentences should not be in the alternative, a judge may have a discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot impose both in the alternative. He must fix positively and with certainty the particular penalty. Petion is granted. SC Affirmed the CA and the Civil Liabilities are likewise deleted.

You might also like