Abellana v People

Facts:
In 1985, Petitioner extended a loan to private respondents spouses Diaga and
Saapia to which wassecured 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 bythe 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 toreturn 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. CAreversed the decision that it violated the
constitutional right of the petitioner to be informed of the natureand cause of the
accusation against him. However, the CA affirmed the trial courts decision with
respectto 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 wasinflicted upon the the
spouses. The evidence showed that the signature of the spouses was genuine

andnot 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 aclear 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.