Dennis T. Villareal vs. Consuelo C. Aliga

G.R. No 166995, January 13, 2014; per Peralta, J.

Facts

Consuelo Aliga was charged for the crime of Qualified Theft thru Falsification of Commercial Document allegedly committed by her being then an accountant of Dentrade Inc., who had access to the company’s checking accounts. She was accused of stealing from complainant’s office a check in the amount of P5,000.00, falsified the amount by changing it to ₱65,000.00 and encashed it with the bank, thereafter misappropriated and converted to her own personal use the amount of ₱60,000.00. During trial before the RTC, both the prosecution and the defense were able to present the testimonies of their witnesses and their respective documentary exhibits. The RTC was convinced that the evidence presented constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt and convicted Aliga. However, the judgment was reversed and set aside by the CA. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition.

Issue

Whether or not a judgment of acquittal is appealable

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that, in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. The private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. In the case at bar, the petition filed essentially assails the criminal, not the civil, aspect of the CA Decision. Petitioner thus lacks the personality or legal standing to question the CA Decision because it is only the OSG which can bring actions on behalf of the State in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the CA.

Moreover, petitioner also committed another procedural blunder. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed instead of herein petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The People may assail a judgment of acquittal only via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy would be violated.