People Vs Miranda

G.R. No.
L-17389 August 31, 1962
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAMERTO S. MIRANDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Mamerto S. Miranda for and in his own behalf as defendant-appellant.
PAREDES, J.:
Mamerto S. Miranda was charged before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City with the crime of
Estafa, Thru Falsification of Commercial Documents, under the provisions of article 315, in relation to
article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, the court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds that the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; it failed to show that the accused had taken
advantage of his position and abuse the confidence reposed on him by the complaining witnesses; and it
also failed to show that the complaining spouses were made to sign all the papers and documents
pertaining to the loan inducement and representation exercised on their persons the accused. However,
the Court also finds that while the complaining witness Mariano Mojica, at least, was fully aware the
second loan of P2,000.00, the said amount was not received by the spouses but was retained by the
accused under an arrangement made by him and Mojica. Therefore the Court acquits the accused from
the charge contained in the information up a reasonable doubt but finds him civilly liable for the proceed
of the loan of P2,000.00 contracted by the complaining spouses from the Rural Bank of Novaliches,
together with all expenses incident thereto, and he is hereby ordered to pay the said amount for the
purpose of discharging the said obligation with the Rural Bank of Novaliches. The bond for the provisional
liberty of the accused is hereby cancelled; with costs de oficio.
Accused Miranda appealed from the above decision, assailing that portion ordering him to pay the sum of
P2,000.00. There are no questions of fact involved.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law
library
In his brief, appellant contends that the civil liability which is included in the criminal action as provided
for in Section 1, Rule 107 of the Rules, is that arising from and as a consequence of the criminal act. Since
the court had acquitted the appellant, on the principal ground that the money had been received or
retained by accused-appellant pursuant to an arrangement between the latter an the offended party
Mojica, in order to conceal the transaction from the other offended party, Mrs. Mojica, it was improper
and unwarranted to impose civil liability in same criminal action. The position of the appellant is sustained
by the Solicitor General who, in his brief, recommended that the portion of the decision ordering the
appellant to pay or making him liable for the sum of P2,000.00, be set
aside.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The issue involved in this case has been passed upon by Us in several cases. Thus, in the identical case of
People v. Pantig, We said -
The appellant argues that the civil liability which is included in the criminal action is that arising from and
as consequence of the criminal act, and that since the defendant appellant was acquitted in the criminal
case, no civil liability arising from the criminal charge could be imposed upon him.
xxx xxx x x xchanrobles virtual law library
The trial court found as a fact that the sum of P1,200.00 ordered to be paid in the judgment of acquittal
was received by the defendant-appellant as loan. This finding is inconsistent with the existence of the
criminal act charged in the information. The liability of the defendant for the return of the amount so
received arises from a civil contract, not from a criminal act, and may not be enforced in the criminal
case." (G.R. No. L-8325, Oct. 25, 1955). (See also MRR Co. vs. Baltazar, 49 O.G. 3874; Pueblo v. Abellara,
69 Phil. 623; People v. Ma�ago 69 Phil. 496).
In the present case, instead of a loan, the appellant retained the money because of an arrangement with
Mr. Mojica, heretofore mentioned.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Verily, the findings of the trial court on the matter of civil liability is inconsistent with the non-existence of
the criminal act charged in the information (Peo v. Pantig, supra).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles
virtual law library
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, that portion of the decision appealed from, which orders the defendant-
appellant Mamerto S. Miranda to pay the sum of P2,000.00 to the complaining spouses, is hereby set
aside, reserving to the offended parties the right to institute the corresponding civil action for the
recovery of the said amount. No costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Concepcion, Labrador, Barrera, Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ.,
concur.
Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.

People Vs Miranda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Miranda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Miranda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-17389 August 31, 1962

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAMERTO S. MIRANDA, Defendant-Appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

You might also like