Our Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
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 guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[20] In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.[21] 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.[22] 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.”[23]
Here, the CA set aside the trial court’s Decision because it convicted petitioner of an offense different from or not included in the crime charged in the Information. To recall, petitioner was charged with estafa through falsification of public document. However, the RTC found 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. On appeal, the CA held that petitioner’s conviction cannot be sustained because it infringed on his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[24] The CA, however, found no reversible error on the civil liability of petitioner as determined by the trial court and thus sustained the same.[25]
We do not agree.
In Banal v. Tadeo, Jr.,[26] we elucidated on the civil liability of the accused despite his exoneration in this wise:
While an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage to another. Viewing things pragmatically, we can readily see that what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and moral duty of everyone 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 be punishable by law. x x x
Simply stated, civil liability arises 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 committed had caused damage to the spouses.
Based on the records of the case, we find that the acts allegedly committed by the petitioner did not cause any damage to spouses Alonto.
First, the Information charged petitioner with fraudulently making it appear that the spouses Alonto affixed their signatures in the Deed of Absolute Sale thereby facilitating the transfer of the subject properties in his favor. However, after the presentation of the parties’ respective evidence, the trial court found that the charge was without basis as the spouses Alonto indeed signed the document and that their signatures were genuine and not forged.
Second, even assuming that the spouses Alonto did not personally appear before the notary public for the notarization of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the same does not necessarily nullify or render void ab initio the parties’ transaction.[27] Such non-appearance is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of the truthfulness of the statements contained in the deed. “To overcome the presumption, there must be sufficient, clear and convincing evidence as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to the falsity of the [deed]. In the absence of such proof, the deed must be upheld.”[28] And since the defective notarization does not ipso factoinvalidate 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.
Moreover, we 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. First, it has absolutely no basis in view of the trial court’s finding that the signatures of the spouses Alonto in the Deed of Absolute Sale are genuine and not forged. Second, “[s]entences should not be in the alternative. There is nothing in the law which permits courts to impose sentences in the alternative.”[29] While a judge has the discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot impose both in the alternative.[30] “He must fix positively and with certainty the particular penalty.”[31]
In view of the above discussion, there is therefore absolutely no basis for the trial court and the CA to hold petitioner civilly liable to restore ownership and possession of the subject properties to the spouses Alonto or to pay them P1,103,000.00 representing the value of the properties and to pay them nominal damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
x x x."
