Today is Wednesday, September 08, 2021

  Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive

THIRD DIVISION

September 26, 2018

G.R. No. 224567

LYDIA CU, Petitioner
vs.
TRINIDAD VENTURA, Respondent

DECISION

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 Resolution   dated December 11, 2015 and Resolution  dated May 13, 2016 of the
1 2

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. 22  (BP 22)
3

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.

Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal and on December 3, 2014, the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 87, Quezon City reversed and set aside the decision of the
MeTC. The dispositive portion of the Decision acquitting the respondent reads as
follows:

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.

Petitioner, through her counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by
the RTC in its Resolution dated May 5, 2015. Thereafter, she filed a Motion for
Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court
with the CA. On July 20, 2015, she filed her Petition for Review under Rule 42 with
the CA.

The CA, in its Resolution dated December 11, 2015, dismissed the appeal. The CA
disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

According to the CA, in criminal actions brought before the Court of Appeals, or the
Supreme Court, the authority to represent the State is solely vested in the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was
denied by the CA in its Resolution dated May 13, 2016.

Hence, the present petition with the following issues presented:

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.

Petitioner contends that respondent has been proven to have violated BP 22 beyond
reasonable doubt as all the elements of the offense were proven by the prosecution.
She also insists that in the petition for review that she filed with the CA, she
questioned the civil aspect of the decision of the RTC and, thus, there is no need for
the representation of the OSG.

In her Comment dated August 30, 2016, respondent argues that petitioner was
actually assailing both the criminal and civil aspect of the appealed decision of the
RTC when she filed an appeal with the CA. Respondent further contends that
petitioner has no legal standing to file the present petition because the subject check
was actually deposited not in her account but into the account of MC Nova Apparel
Export Corporation which is a family-owned corporation with separate and distinct
personality, and petitioner has not presented any authority or board resolution to
prove that she was authorized to represent the said corporation.

The petition is without merit.

The Rules of Court requires that only questions of law should be raised in petitions
filed under Rule 45.  This Court is not a trier of facts. It will not entertain questions of
4

fact as the factual findings of the appellate courts are "final, binding[,] or conclusive on
the parties and upon this [ c ]ourt"  when supported by substantial evidence.   Factual
5 6

findings of the appellate courts will not be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal to this
court.7

However, these rules do admit exceptions. Over time, the exceptions to these rules
have expanded. At present, there are ten (10) recognized exceptions that were first
listed in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.: 8

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or

conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; ( 4) When the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; ( 5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
( 6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the
case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7)
The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When
the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they
are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact
of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is
contradicted by the evidence on record. 9

These exceptions similarly apply in petitions for review filed before this court involving
civil,   labor,   tax,   or criminal cases. 
10 11 12 13

A question of fact requires this court to review the truthfulness or falsity of the
allegations of the parties.   This review includes assessment of the "probative value of
14

the evidence presented."   There is also a question of fact when the issue presented
15

before this court is the correctness of the lower courts' appreciation of the evidence
presented by the parties.  16

In this case, the first issue raised by petitioner obviously asks this Court to review the
evidence presented during the trial. She has laid down in the present petition the
reasons as to why this Court should find respondent guilty of the crime charged
against her and reverse the latter's acquittal by the RTC. Clearly, this is not the role of
this Court because the issue she presented is factual in nature. Thus, the present
petition must fail.

The CA dismissed petitioner's Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court
because she is not the proper party to appeal in a criminal case. It ruled that in
criminal cases or proceedings, only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions
on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State. This is
in compliance with the provisions of Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book III of the
Administrative Code of 1987, as amended, thus:

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.

The above, however, is not without any exception. The two exceptions are: (1) when
there is denial of due process of law to the prosecution and the State or its agents
refuse to act on the case to the prejudice of the State and the private offended party,
and (2) when the private offended party questions the civil aspect of a decision of a
lower court. 17

According to petitioner, she falls under the second because in the petition for review
that she filed before the CA, what she questioned was the civil aspect of the decision
of the RTC.

In the second exception, it is assumed that a decision on the merits had already been
rendered by the lower court and it is the civil aspect of the case which the offended
party is appealing.   The offended party, who is not satisfied with the outcome of the
18

case, may question the amount of the grant or denial of damages made by the court
below even without the participation of the Solicitor General.  19

In Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa,   the Court ruled that in criminal cases, the
20

State is the offended party and the private complainant's interest is limited to the civil
liability arising therefrom, thus:

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 De la Rosa v. Court of Appeals,  citing People v. Santiago,  the Court held:

21 22

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.

The respondent, however, argues that what petitioner prayed for in her petition was
for the CA to rule that respondent be guilty of violatfon of BP 22 and be made liable
for the amount of Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱2,400,000.00), plus
interests, thus:

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.

Nothing in the above prayer does it mention nor is categorical in its statement that
petitioner only seeks the review of the civil aspect of the case. The fact that petitioner
filed a petition for review under Rule 42, or ordinary appeal with the CA, is already an
indication that what she was seeking was the reversal of the entire decision of the
RTC, in both its criminal and civil aspects. Petitioner could have filed a special civil
action for certiorari had she intended to merely preserve her interest in the civil aspect
of the case.

Nevertheless, granting that what petitioner questioned was the civil aspect of the
case, the petition must still fail.  A close reading of the records would show that the
1âwphi1

prosecution was not able to prove and establish its case, not only in its criminal
aspect but also in its civil aspect where the required proof needed is only a
preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and
value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be
synonymous with the term 'greater weight of the evidence' or 'greater weight of the
credible evidence.' Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis,
means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto."   As correctly ruled
23

by the RTC:

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

Again, jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial
court, or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG that may bring an
appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People.  The rationale therefor is
25

rooted in the principle that the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is
the People and not the petitioners who are mere complaining witnesses.  For this
26

reason, the People are deemed as the real parties-in-interest in the criminal case and,
therefore, only the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the
CA or in this Court.  In view of the corollary principle that every action must be
27

prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who stands to be

benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of
the suit,  an appeal of the criminal case not filed by the People as represented by the
28

OSG is perforce dismissible. The private complainant or the offended party may,
however, file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG, but only insofar as the
civil liability of the accused is concerned.  He may also file a special civil action
29

for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of
preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case.
30

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court, dated July 1, 2016, of petitioner Lydia Cu is DENIED and the Resolution dated
December 11, 2015 and the Resolution dated May 13, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 37691 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

On wellness leave
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice

On official business
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
CAGUIOA Associate Justice
Associate Justice
JOSE C. REYES, JR.
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court’s Division.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

*
 On wellness leave.

 Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr.,

**

per Special Order No. 2588-E dated September 18, 2018; on official
business.

 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with then Presiding

1

Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and

Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.

2
 Id.

 An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check

3

Without Sufficient Funds or Cerdit and For Other Purposes.

4
 Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. I.

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

 Dichoso, Jr., et al. v. Marcos, 663 Phil. 48 (2011) [Per J. Nachura,

10

Second Division] and Spouses Caoili v. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil.

122, 132 (1999) [Per J. Gonzaga- Reyes, Third Division].

 Go v. Court of Appeals, 474 Phil. 404, 411 (2004) [Per J. Ynares-

11

Santiago, First Division] and Arriola v. Filipino Star Ngayon, Inc., et al.,
741 Phil. 171 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments

12

Industries (Phil), Inc., 364 Phil. 541, 546-547 (1999) [Per J. Pardo,

First Division].

 Macayan, Jr. v. People, 756 Phil. 202 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second
13

Division]; Benito v. People, 753 Ph; I. 61 6 (2015) [Poe J. Leon en.

Seoond Division].

 Republic v. Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership, 728 Phil. 277,

14

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].

 Republic v. Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership, supra note

15

14, at 288 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

 Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 776 Phil. 167, 183 (2016).

16

 Heirs of Delgado, et al. v. Gonzalez, et al., 612 Phil. 817, 844 (2009).

17

 Id.
18

 Id.
19

 493 Phil. 85, 108 (2005).

20

 323 Phil. 596, 605 ( 1996).

21

 255 Phil. 851, 862 (1989).

22

 Evangelista v. Spouses Andolong, et al., 800 Phil. 189, 195 (2016).

23

 CA rollo, pp. 15-16.

24

 See Soriano v. Judge Angeles, 393 Phil. 769, 776 (2000);

25

and Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan, 675 Phil. 656, 664 (2011).

 Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., et al. v. Philip Piccio, et al., 740

26

Phil. 616, 622 (2014).

 Jimenez v. Judge Sorongon, et al.,, 700 Phil. 316, 325 (2012).

27

 Id. at 324.
28

 Villareal v. Aliga, 724 Phil. 47, 57 (2014).

29
  See Ong v. Genia, 623 Phil. 835 (2009).
30

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation