THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 224567, September 26, 2018
LYDIA CU, Petitioner, v. TRINIDAD VENTURA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, dated July 1, 2016, of petitioner Lydia Cu that seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution1 dated December 11, 2015 and Resolution2 dated May 13, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37691 dismissing petitioner's appeal on the ground that as a private complainant, she is not authorized to represent the State in an appeal from a criminal action.
The facts follow.
Petitioner filed a Complaint-Affidavit for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 223(BP 22) against respondent before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Eventually, the Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause and an Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City against respondent for violation of BP 22.
After trial on the merits, the MeTC, Branch 37 of Quezon City found the respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of BP 22. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated January 10, 2014 reads as follows:
The foregoing manifests clearly that the accused has violated beyond reasonable doubt, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. In view thereof, he is hereby ordered to:1. Pay the total amount of the check which is for P2,000,000.00 and pay an interest of 12% per annum from the date of the check, up to the time that is fully paid;
2. Pay a fine of P200,000.00;
3. Suffer an imprisonment of sixty (60) days;
4. Pay the costs of suit, including Attorney's Fees and per appearance fee, should there be any.
The accused is to suffer, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, viewed in the light of the foregoing, the Decision dated January 10, 2014 of the Court a quo is hereby reversed and set aside and a new one rendered ACQUITTING the accused TRINIDAD VENTURA, of the crime of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
The civil aspect of the case is DISMISSED for failure of the private complainant to prove the requisite quantum of evidence preponderance of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
I.WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT TRINIDAD VENTURA IS GUILTY OF B.P. 22.II.WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO PETITIONER FOR THE CIVIL ASPECT.
Section 35. Power and Functions. – The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. When authorized by the President or head of the office concerned, it shall also represent government-owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the service of a lawyer. It shall have the following specific power and functions:(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
Hence, if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, a reconsideration of the order of dismissal or acquittal may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, insofar as the criminal aspect thereof is concerned and may be made only by the public prosecutor; or in the case of an appeal, by the State only, through the OSG. The private complainant or offended party may not undertake such motion for reconsideration or appeal on the criminal aspect of the case. However, the offended party or private complainant may file a motion for reconsideration of such dismissal or acquittal or appeal therefrom but only insofar as the civil aspect thereof is concerned.
In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in (the) name of said complainant.
WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the assailed Decision dated December 3, 2014 and the Order dated May 5, 2015 be set aside and a new one be rendered finding respondent guilty of violation of BP 22 and be made liable for the amount of TWO MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P2,400,000.00) in favor of the petitioner, plus interests.
The Court holds that the existence of accused-appellant's civil liability to plaintiff-appellee representing the face value of the dishonored check has not been sufficiently established by [preponderance of] evidence. Plaintiff-appellee mainly relied [on] her testimony before the court [a quo] to establish the existence of this unpaid obligation. In gist, she testified that the accused-appellant obtained a loan from her in the amount of $100,000.00 and as partial payment of her obligation, accused-appellant issued the subject MetroBank Check No. 018049 dated June 15, 2007 in the amount of P2,400,000.00. When the accused-appellant allegedly refused to pay her obligation, she deposited the check for payment but the same bounced for the reason that it was drawn against insufficient funds. Unfortunately, plaintiff-appellee's testimony alone does not constitute preponderant evidence to establish accused-appellant's liability to her. Apart from the dishonored check, she failed to adduce any other documentary evidence to prove that the accused has still an unpaid obligation to. her. Unsubstantiated evidence are not equivalent to proof under the Rules.
In contrast, accused-appellant's defense consisted in, among others, her allegation that she had already paid the face value of the check through the private complainant Lydia Cu. Accused-appellant presented documents consisting of an Agreement between her and Lydia Cu, the authorized representative of Jun Yupitun showing that she obtained a loan from Mr. Yupitun through Lydia Cu in the amount of $31,000.00 (Exhibit "2") and the acknowledgment receipt dated July 22, 2014 (Exhibit "2-a" ) signed by Lydia Cu showing that the principal loan obligation of the accused-appellant was fully paid and gave her instruction to her secretary to just tear the subject check or leave the same to her. The existence and due execution of those documents were not rebutted by the prosecution. Thus, considering the presentation of these documents which were not rebutted by the prosecution through the presentation of a rebuttal witness, it is logical to conclude that absent any evidence to the contrary, it formed part of accused-appellant's evidence of payment of her loan obligation, which includes the face value of the dishonored check.24
Endnotes:
** Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., per Special Order No. 2588-E dated September 18, 2018; on official business.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with then Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
2 Id.
3 An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes.
4 Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 1.
5 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phil.), Inc., 364 Phil. 541, 546 (1999) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
6 Siasat v. Court of Appeals, 425 Phil. 139, 145 (2002) [Per J. Pardo, First Division]; Tabaco v. Court of . Appeals, 239 Phil. 485, 490 (1994) [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division]; and Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 241 Phil. 776, 781 (1988) [Per J. Paras, Second Division].
7 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Special First Division].
8 269 Phil. 225 (1990) [Per J. Bidin, Third Division].
9 Id. at 232.
10 Dichoso, Jr., et al. v. Marcos, 663 Phil. 48 (2011) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division] and Spouses Caoili v. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 122, 132 (1999) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division].
11 Gov. Court of Appeals, 474 Phil. 404, 411 (2004) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division] and Arriola v. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc., et al., 741 Phil. 171 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
12 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phil), Inc., 364 Phil. 541, 546-547 (1999) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
13 Macayan, Jr. v. People, 756 Phil. 202 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]; Benito v. People, 753 Phil. 616 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
14 Republic v. Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership, 728 Phil. 277, 287-288 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] and Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 665 Phil. 784, 788 (2011) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
15 Republic v. Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership, supra note 14, at 288 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
16 Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 776 Phil. 167, 183 (2016).
17 Heirs of Delgado, et al. v. Gonzalez, et al., 612 Phil. 817, 844 (2009).
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 493 Phil. 85, 108 (2005).
21 323 Phil. 596, 605 ( 1996).
22 255 Phil. 851, 862 (1989).
23 Evangelista v. Spouses Andolong, et al., 800 Phil. 189, 195 (2016).
24 CA rollo, pp. 15-16.
25 See Soriano v. Judge Angeles, 393 Phil. 769, 776 (2000); and Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan, 675 Phil. 656, 664 (2011).
26 Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., et al. v. Philip Piccio, et al., 740 Phil. 616, 622 (2014).
27 Jimenez v. Judge Sorongon, et al.,, 700 Phil. 316, 325 (2012).
28 Id. at 324.
29 Villareal v. Aliga, 724 Phil. 47, 57 (2014).
30 See Ong v. Genio, 623 Phil. 835 (2009).