8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 123340. August 29, 2002.

LUTGARDA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF

APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the
HEIRS OF ESTANISLAWA C. REYES, represented by
MIGUEL C. REYES, respondents.

Remedial Law; Jurisdiction; If the trial court has jurisdiction

over the subject matter and over the accused, and the crime was
committed within its territorial jurisdiction, it necessarily
exercises jurisdiction over all matters that the law requires the
court to resolve.—When the accused is acquitted on reasonable
doubt but is adjudged civilly liable, his motion for reconsideration
of the civil aspect must be served not only on the prosecution, also
on the offended party if the latter is not represented by a private
counsel. Moreover, if the trial court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter and over the accused, and the crime was
committed within its territorial jurisdiction, it necessarily
exercises jurisdiction over all matters that the law requires the
court to resolve. This includes the power to order the restitution
to the offended party of real property located in another province.
Same; Motions; Pleadings and Practices; The well-settled rule
is that a motion which fails to comply with Sections 4, 5, and 6 of
Rule 15 is a useless piece of paper; If filed, such motion is not
entitled to judicial cogni-zance and does not stop the running of
the reglementary period for filing the requisite pleading.—We
agree with the Court of Appeals that peti-

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

73

VOL. 388, AUGUST 29, 2002 73

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

tioner patently failed to comply with the mandatory requirements

on proof of service insofar as the public prosecutor is concerned.
The Court has stressed time and again that non-compliance with
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 is a fatal defect. The well-settled
rule is that a motion which fails to comply with Sections 4, 5, and
6 of Rule 15 is a useless piece of paper. If filed, such motion is not
entitled to judicial cognizance and does not stop the running of
the reglementary period for filing the requisite pleading.
Same; Same; Same; Proof of service is mandatory.—From the
language of the rule, proof of service is mandatory. Without such
proof of service to the adverse party, a motion is nothing but an
empty formality deserving no judicial cognizance, x x x If service
is by registered mail, proof of service consists of the affidavit of
the person mailing and the registry receipt, both of which must be
appended to the motion. Absent one or the other, or worse both,
there is no proof of service.
Same; Same; Same; If the accused appeals or moves for
reconsideration, he should serve a copy of his pleading on the
offended party himself if the latter is not represented by a private
counsel.—If the accused appeals or moves for reconsideration, a
lacuna arises if the offended party is not represented by a private
counsel. In such a situation, under the present Rules only the
public prosecutor is served the notice of appeal or a copy of the
motion for reconsideration. To fill in this lacuna in the present
Rules, we require that henceforth if the accused appeals or moves
for reconsideration, he should serve a copy of his pleading on the
offended party himself if the latter is not represented by a private
counsel. This is in addition to service on the public prosecutor who
is the counsel of record of the State.
Same; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Either the offended party
or the accused may appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite
the acquittal of the accused.—A judgment of acquittal is
immediately final and executory and the prosecution cannot
appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition
against double jeopardy. However, either the offended party or
the accused may appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite
the acquittal of the accused. The public prosecutor has generally
no interest in appealing the civil aspect of a decision acquitting
the accused. The acquittal ends the work of the public prosecutor
and the case is terminated as far as he is concerned.
Same; Same; Same The real parties in interest in the civil
aspect of a decision are the offended party and the accused.—The
real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

offended party and the accused. Thus, any appeal or motion for
reconsideration of the civil aspect of a

74

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

decision in a criminal case must be served on the other real party

in interest. If the offended party appeals or moves for
reconsideration, the accused is necessarily served a copy of the
pleading through his counsel.
Same; Same; Jurisdiction; Three important requisites which
must be present before a court can acquire criminal jurisdiction.—
There are three important requisites which must be present
before a court can acquire criminal jurisdiction. First, the court
must have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Second, the court
must have jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was
committed. Third, the court must have jurisdiction over the
person of the accused. In the instant case, the trial court had
jurisdiction over the subject matter as the law has conferred on
the court the power to hear and decide cases involving estafa
through falsification of a public document. The trial court also had
jurisdiction over the offense charged since the crime was
committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The trial court also
acquired jurisdiction over the person of accused-petitioner
because she voluntarily submitted to the court’s authority.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Punzalan & Associates Law Office for petitioner.
     Ramos-Pulumbarit & Santiago Law Office for private
respondents.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court to reverse the1
Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated March 2
31, 1995 and its Resolution dated
December 1, 1995. The Court of Appeals dismissed for

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

being insufficient in substance the Petition for Certiorari

and Mandamus, which sought to nullify

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero and concurred

in by Associate Justices Asaali S. Isnani and Antonio P. Solano, Rollo, pp.
8-13.
2 Rollo, p. 14.

75

VOL. 388, AUGUST 29, 2002 75

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

two orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch

53, dated April 18, 1994 and May 6, 1994.

The Antecedent Facts

The City Prosecutor of Manila charged petitioner with the

crime of “Estafa thru Falsification of Public3 Document”
before the Manila Regional Trial Court. Petitioner
executed before a Notary Public in the City of Manila an
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication of a parcel of land stating
that she was the sole surviving heir of the registered owner
when in fact she knew there were other surviving heirs.
Since the offended party did not reserve the right to file a
separate civil action arising from the criminal offense, the
civil action was deemed instituted in the criminal case.
After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its
decision dated January 17, 1994 acquitting petitioner on
the ground of reasonable doubt. In the same decision, the
trial court rendered judgment on the civil aspect of the
case, ordering the return to the 4
surviving heirs of the
parcel of land located in Bulacan.
On January 28, 1994, petitioner received a copy of the
decision.
On February 10, 1994, petitioner filed by registered mail
a motion for reconsideration dated February 7, 1994,
assailing the trial court’s ruling on the civil aspect of the
criminal case. Petitioner furnished the City Prosecutor a
copy of the motion by registered mail.
On April 18, 1994, the trial court denied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration stating:

_______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

3 Docketed as Criminal Case No. 87-57743 in Branch 53 of the Regional

Trial Court of Manila.
4 The trial court declared that petitioner held the parcel of land merely
as trustee of the true surviving heirs of the registered owner. The trial
court ordered petitioner not to encumber or dispose of the said property at
the risk of incurring criminal liability. Finally, the trial court ordered the
cancellation of the title in the name of petitioner and the issuance of a new
title in the name of the heirs, upon reimbursement to petitioner of the
P2,500.00 she paid to redeem the property.

76

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

“Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration dated February 7,

1994, filed by the accused through counsel and considering that
there is nothing to show that the Office of the City Prosecutor was
actually furnished or served with a copy of the said Motion for
Reconsideration within the reglementary period of fifteen (15)
days from receipt by the accused on January 28, 1994 of a copy of
the Court’s decision dated January 17, 1994, so that the same is
already final and executory,
5
let the Motion for Reconsideration be
Denied for lack of merit.”

Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the trial court’s

order of April 18, 1994. The trial court denied the same in
an order dated May 6, 1994, to wit:

“Under the Interim Rules, no party shall be allowed a second

motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment (Sec. 4).
The motion of accused dated 22 April 1994 is a violation of this
rule. 6
WHEREFORE, said motion is DENIED.”

Left with no recourse, petitioner filed a petition for

certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals to
nullify the two assailed orders of the trial court. Petitioner
also asked the Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to
resolve her motion for reconsideration of the decision dated
February 7, 1994.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On March 31, 1995, the Court of Appeals denied due course

to the petition and dismissed the case for being insufficient
in substance.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

The Court of Appeals sustained the trial court’s order of

April 18, 1994 denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. The Court of Appeals declared in part:

“Section 10, Rule 13, Rules of Court, provides as follows:

“SEC. 10. Proof of Service.—Proof of personal service shall consist of a

written admission of the party served, or the affidavit of the party
serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and

_______________

5 Rollo, p. 46.
6 Rollo, p. 50.

77

VOL. 388, AUGUST 29, 2002 77

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall

consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance
with Section 5 of this rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof
shall be made by such affidavit and the registry-receipt issued by the
mailing office. The registry-return card shall be filed immediately upon
receipt thereof by the sender, or in lieu thereof the letter unclaimed
together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the
postmaster to the addressee.”

Patent from the language of the said section is that in case

service is made by registered mail, proof of service shall be made
by (a) affidavit of the person mailing and (b) the registry receipt
issued by the mailing office. Both must concur. In the case at
bench, there was no such affidavit or registry receipt when the
motion was considered. Thus, respondent Judge cannot be said to
have acted with grave abuse of discretion 7amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, in ruling in the manner he did.”

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s order of

May 6, 1994 denying the subsequent motion for
reconsideration, as follows:

“x x x, while there is merit in petitioner’s submission that the

motion for reconsideration dated April 22, 1994 was not a second
motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment, as
contemplated in the Interim Rules because the motion sought to
impugn the order dated 18 April 1994 not on the basis of the
issues raised in the motion for reconsideration dated 07 February
1994 but8 on the erroneous legal conclusion of the order dated May
6, 1994, this is already academic. The decision dated January 7,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

1994 had long become final when the second motion for
reconsideration was filed on 03 May 1994. Hence, the pairing
Judge who issued the order on 06 May
9
1994 had no more legal
competence to promulgate the same.”

Finally, the Court of Appeals upheld the assailed decision

of the trial court on the civil aspect of the case, to wit:

“x x x, the institution of a criminal action carries with it the civil

action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense
charged. There was neither reservation nor waiver of the right to
file the civil action separately nor has one been instituted to the
criminal action. Hence,

_______________

7 Rollo, p. 11.
8 This should read April 18, 1994.
9 Rollo, p. 12.

78

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

the civil action for the civil liability has been impliedly instituted
with the filing of the criminal case before respondent Judge. This
is the law on the matter. The proposition submitted by petitioner
that the court presided by respondent Judge had no jurisdiction
over the property because it is located in Bulacan—outside the
territorial jurisdiction of said court—does not hold water. Being a
civil liability arising from the offense charged, the governing law
is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the civil procedure rules
which pertain to civil action10
arising from the initiatory pleading
that gives rise to the suit.”

In the dispositive portion of its assailed decision, the Court

of Appeals declared:
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition not being sufficient
in substance is hereby
11
DENIED DUE COURSE and the
case DISMISSED.”
In a resolution dated December 1, 1995, the Court 12
of
Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition.

The Issues

In her Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

“WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED

1.
IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION
WAS DULY FURNISHED WITH COPY OF THE
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE
DECISION ON THE CIVIL ASPECT OF
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 87-54773 (SIC) OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA,
BRANCH 53.”
2. “WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN FINDING THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MANILA HAD JURISDIC TION TO
RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE CIVIL ASPECT
OF CRIMI NAL CASE NO. 87-57743 FOR
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCU MENT,
INVOLVING A PROPERTY LOCATED IN
BULACAN.”
3. “WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS
DENIED DUE PROCESS

_______________

10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., p. 13.
12 Supra, see note 2.

79

VOL. 388, AUGUST 29, 2002 79

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

WHEN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF

MANILA, BRANCH 53, RENDERED DECISION
ON THE CIVIL 13
ASPECT OF CRIMINAL CASE
NO. 87-57743.”

The Ruling of the Court

We grant the petition.

When the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt but
is adjudged civilly liable, his motion for reconsideration of
the civil aspect must be served not only on the prosecution,
also on the offended party if the latter is not represented by
a private counsel. Moreover, if the trial court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the accused,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

and the crime was committed within its territorial

jurisdiction, it necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all
matters that the law requires the court to resolve. This
includes the power to order the restitution to the offended
party of real property located in another province.

Absence of Proof of Service

The first issue is whether petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration dated February 7, 1994 complied with the
mandatory requirements of Section 6, Rule 15 on proof of
service. Petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals erred
in sustaining the trial court’s finding that the City
Prosecutor was not duly and timely furnished with
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of February 7, 1994.
Petitioner asserts that both copies of the motion for
reconsideration were sent to the trial court and the City
Prosecutor by registered mail on February 10, 1994.
Petitioner relies on jurisprudence that the date of mailing
is the date of filing, arguing that the date of mailing of both
motions was on February 10, 1994. Petitioner maintains
that the motion was properly filed within the 15-day
period, citing the registry return card which shows actual
receipt on February 22, 1994 by the City Prosecutor of a
copy of the motion.
The Court of Appeals, noting that petitioner received a
copy of the decision on January 28, 1994, stated that
petitioner had until

_______________

13 Rollo, pp. 144-145.

80

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

February 12, 1994 to appeal the decision or file a motion for

reconsideration. The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner,
by filing a motion for reconsideration without any proof of
service, merely filed a scrap of paper and not a motion for
reconsideration. Hence, the reglementary period of
petitioner to appeal continued to run and lapsed after the
15-day period, making the trial court’s decision final and
executory.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner
patently failed to comply with the mandatory requirements
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

on proof of service insofar as the public prosecutor is

concerned. The Court has stressed time and again that
non-compliance with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 is a
fatal defect. The well-settled rule is that a motion which
fails to comply with Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 is a
useless piece of paper. If filed, such motion is not entitled to
judicial cognizance and does not stop the running of the 14
reglementary period for filing the requisite pleading.
Section 6 of Rule 15 reads:

“SEC. 6. Proof of service to be filed with motions.—No motion shall

be acted 15upon by the court, without proof of service of the notice
thereof.” (Emphasis supplied)

From the language of the rule, proof of service is

mandatory. Without such proof of service to the adverse
party, a motion is nothing but an empty formality
deserving no judicial cognizance.
Section 13 of Rule 13 further requires that:

“SEC. 13. Proof of Service.—x x x. If service is made by registered

mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt
issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed
immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the
unclaimed letter to-

_______________

14 Del Castillo vs. Aguinaldo, 212 SCRA 169 (1992); Cui vs. Madayag, 245
SCRA 1 (1995); Prado vs. Veridiano II, 204 SCRA 654 (1991).
15 This is taken from Section 6 of the former Rule, which reads:

“SEC. 6. Proof of service to be filed with motions.—No motion shall be acted upon by the
court, without proof of service of the notice thereof, except when the court is satisfied that
the rights of the adverse party or parties are not affected.”

81

VOL. 388, AUGUST 29, 2002 81

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

gether with the certified or sworn

16
copy of the notice given by the
postmaster to the addressee.” (Emphasis supplied)

If service is by registered mail, proof of service consists of

the affidavit of the person mailing and the registry receipt,
both of which must be appended to the motion. Absent one
or the other, or worse both, there is no proof of service.
In the instant case, an examination of the record shows
that petitioner received a copy of the trial court’s decision
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

of January 17, 1994 on January 28, 1994. Within the

reglementary period to appeal, petitioner filed on February
10, 1994, by registered mail, a motion for reconsideration.
However, petitioner failed to attach both the affidavit and
the registry receipt to the motion for reconsideration as
required by the Rules.
The defect of the motion is apparent on its face.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was a mere scrap of
paper as it did not contain the required proof of service.
However, petitioner is contesting that part of the
decision of the trial court finding him civilly liable even as
he is acquitted from the criminal charge on reasonable
doubt. This raises the issue of whether the public
prosecutor is the only proper party to be served with
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The present Rules
do not require the accused to serve a copy of his motion for
reconsideration on the offended party who may not be
represented by a private counsel. The Rules require service
only on the public prosecutor if the offended party is not
represented by a private counsel.
A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and
executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal
because of the constitutional prohibition against double
jeopardy. However, either the offended party or the accused
may appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the
acquittal of the accused. The public prosecutor has
generally no interest in appealing the civil aspect of a
decision acquitting the accused. The acquittal ends the
work of the public prosecutor and the case is terminated as
far as he is concerned.

_______________

16 This is taken from Section 10 of the old Rule.

82

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision

are the offended party and the accused. Thus, any appeal
or motion for reconsideration of the civil aspect of a
decision in a criminal case must be served on the other real
party in interest. If the offended party appeals or moves for
reconsideration, the accused is necessarily served a copy of
the pleading through his counsel.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

If the accused appeals or moves for reconsideration, a

lacuna arises if the offended party is not represented by a
private counsel. In such a situation, under the present
Rules only the public prosecutor is served the notice of
appeal or a copy of the motion for reconsideration. To fill in
this lacuna in the present Rules, we require that
henceforth if the accused appeals or moves for
reconsideration, he should serve a copy of his pleading on
the offended party himself if the latter is not represented
by a private counsel. This is in addition to service on the
public prosecutor who is the counsel of record of the State.
In the instant case, the Court notes that petitioner did
not serve a copy of her motion for reconsideration on the
offended party who was not represented by a private
counsel in the trial court. In the interest of justice, and
considering that the present Rules are silent on the matter,
it is only fair to give petitioner a period of five days from
receipt of this decision within which to serve a copy of her
motion for reconsideration on the offended party.

Trial court’s jurisdiction over the civil aspect.

Petitioner maintains that the Court of Appeals erred in

finding that the trial court had jurisdiction to render
judgment on the civil aspect of the criminal case. Petitioner
asserts that the Manila trial court had no jurisdiction over
the parcel of land in Bulacan which is outside the trial
court’s territorial jurisdiction.
In upholding the trial court’s jurisdiction, the Court of
Appeals held:

“Being a civil liability arising from the offense charged, the

governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the civil
procedure rules

83

VOL. 388, AUGUST 29, 2002 83

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

which pertain to civil action17

arising from the initiatory pleading
that gives rise to the suit.”

We agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner asserts that the location of the subject
property outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction deprived
the trial court of jurisdiction over the civil aspect of the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

criminal case. This argument is contrary to the law and the

rules.
There are three important requisites which must be
present before a court can acquire criminal jurisdiction.
First, the court must have jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Second, the court must have jurisdiction over the
territory where the offense was committed. Third, the court
18
must have jurisdiction over the person of the accused. In
the instant case, the trial court had jurisdiction over the
subject matter as the law has conferred on the court the
power to hear and decide cases involving estafa through
falsification of a public document. The trial court also had
jurisdiction over the offense charged since the crime was
committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The trial court
also acquired jurisdiction over the person of accused-
petitioner because she voluntarily submitted to the court’s
authority.
Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter
and over the person of the accused, and the crime was
committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court
necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the
law requires the court to resolve. One of the issues in a
criminal case is the civil liability of the accused arising
from the crime. Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that “[E]very person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable.” Article 104 of the same Code states
that “civil liability x x x includes restitution.”
The action for recovery of civil liability is deemed
instituted in the19
criminal action unless reserved by the
offended party. In the

_______________

17 Supra, see note 9.

18 Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law, Volume IV, 1992 Edition, p. 3.
19 Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which
was the same rule as the 1985 Rules insofar as civil liability ex-delicto was
concerned.

84

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

instant case, the offended party did not reserve the civil
action and the civil action was deemed instituted in the
criminal action. Although the trial court acquitted
petitioner of the crime charged, the acquittal, grounded on
20
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
20
reasonable doubt, did not extinguish the civil liability.
Thus, the Manila trial court had jurisdiction to decide the
civil aspect of the instant case—ordering restitution even if
the parcel of land is located in Bulacan.
Consequently, while we find no reversible error in the
decision of the Court of Appeals as to proof of service and
the trial court’s jurisdiction on the civil aspect, we remand
this case for further proceedings in the interest of justice.
WHEREFORE, petitioner is given five (5) days from
receipt of this decision within which to serve a copy of her
motion for reconsideration on the offended party. Let this
case be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

     Puno (Chairman) and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

     Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., On leave.

Case remanded to trial court for further proceedings.

Note.—A motion that does not comply with the

requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of
Court is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk of court
has no right to receive and which the court has no
authority to act upon. (Pallada vs. Regional Trial Court of
Kalibo, Aklan Br. 1, 304 SCRA 440 [1999])

——o0o——

_______________

20 The last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of

Criminal Procedure provides as follows: “The extinction of the penal action
does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil
action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in
a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from
which the civil liability may arise did not exist.” This is substantially the
same rule as in the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure.

85

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
8/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001740b6434907d69d55a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15