Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Romeo Lorenzo vs. People G.R. No. 152335 DECEMBER 19, 2005 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Ramon Khalil Erum IV
    96 views1 page
    Romeo Lorenzo was found guilty of estafa for selling property rights to Myrna Minggoy that he did not legally own. Minggoy filed a separate civil case against Lorenzo to recover the ₱150,000 purchase price, but the case was dismissed with prejudice for Minggoy's failure to appear. Lorenzo argued the Court of Appeals should not order him to pay ₱150,000 indemnification since the civil case recovering that amount had already been dismissed. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that since the civil case dismissal was with prejudice, it barred recovery of civil indemnity in the criminal case for the same amount.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Lorenzo-vs.-People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Romeo Lorenzo was found guilty of estafa for selling property rights to Myrna Minggoy that he did not legally own. Minggoy filed a separate civil case against Lorenzo to recover the ₱150,000 purchase price, but the case was dismissed with prejudice for Minggoy's failure to appear. Lorenzo argued the Court of Appeals should not order him to pay ₱150,000 indemnification since the civil case recovering that amount had already been dismissed. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that since the civil case dismissal was with prejudice, it barred recovery of civil indemnity in the criminal case for the same amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views1 page

    Romeo Lorenzo vs. People G.R. No. 152335 DECEMBER 19, 2005 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Ramon Khalil Erum IV
    Romeo Lorenzo was found guilty of estafa for selling property rights to Myrna Minggoy that he did not legally own. Minggoy filed a separate civil case against Lorenzo to recover the ₱150,000 purchase price, but the case was dismissed with prejudice for Minggoy's failure to appear. Lorenzo argued the Court of Appeals should not order him to pay ₱150,000 indemnification since the civil case recovering that amount had already been dismissed. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that since the civil case dismissal was with prejudice, it barred recovery of civil indemnity in the criminal case for the same amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ROMEO LORENZO vs. PEOPLE declared her non-suited and dismissed the complaint.

    Complainant
    G.R. No. 152335 DECEMBER 19, 2005 moved for reconsideration and the motion was granted. Petitioner
    sought reconsideration of the order but was denied. Hence, he filed
    FACTS: a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave
    abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC judge. The appellate court
    Petitioner Romeo Lorenzo was found guilty of Estafa under Artilce granted the petition for certiorari since it found that complainant
    315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. According to the information, had filed her motion for reconsideration long after the order
    petitioner and his wife, Carmelita Lorenzo, by means of false dismissing the complaint had become final and executory, and the
    manifestations and fraudulent representations that they have the RTC had already lost jurisdiction over the case.
    lawful and legal rights and interest over a house and lot in San
    Pedro, Laguna, sold to Myrna Minggoy, the said rights and interests, Evidently, the civil case was not decided on the merits and no
    for the consideration of Php 150,000.00. judgment was ever rendered. However, the Rules of Court provide
    that the failure of the plaintiff to appear at the pre-trial shall be
    It was alleged that the property was mortgaged wit the GSIS and if cause for dismissal of the action with prejudice, unless otherwise
    she agreed to buy the property, she would have to continue making ordered by the court. The record is bereft of any evidence that
    the mortgage payments. The Statement of Account showed that would indicate that the dismissal of the civil case was without
    petitioner had arrears amounting to Php307,784.32. Minggoy prejudice; hence, we could only assume that it was with prejudice.
    agreed to buy the said property. This being so, the dismissal of the civil case bars recovery of civil
    indemnity by the offended party in the criminal case.
    However, when Minggoy sought to occupy the property, petitioner
    refused to leave the house. Minggoy went to the GSIS to confirm
    ownership of the property by petitioner and found out that the
    latter had cancelled the Deed of Conditional Sale it had issued to
    petitioner for failure to settle his account.

    Petitioner, however, raises a point that should be ruled in his favor.


    He argues that the Court of Appeals should not have ordered him to
    indemnify complainant in the amount of ₱150,000.00, saying that
    complainant had instituted a separate civil action for recovery of the
    ₱150,000.00 plus damages, but the same was dismissed by the
    Court of Appeals on 29 November 1996 in a petition for certiorari in
    CA-G.R. SP No. 40468. Hence, petitioner asserts, to award indemnity
    would be tantamount to making an award on the basis of civil
    liability which has been subject of a separate case already dismissed
    with finality.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not an order of indemnification of Php150,000.00 is


    proper.

    RULING:

    NO. Our laws allow the filing of a separate civil action for damages
    against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not such offender
    is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that
    the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also
    criminally, to recover damages on both scores. The offended party
    would be entitled only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the
    awards made in the two cases vary.

    According to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40468,


    complainant had filed on 22 September 1995 a verified complaint
    for Recovery of Sum of Money with Damages against petitioner
    before the same RTC of San Pedro, Laguna, docketed as Civil Case
    No. SPL-0015. However, complainant failed to appear at the pre-trial
    conference and did not file her pre-trial brief. Hence, the RTC

    You might also like