GR 117512; (October, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117512 ; October 2, 2001
REBECCA ALA-MARTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 98, Quezon City; MARILINE D. ALA, SPOUSE MANUEL and SUSAN QUIMBO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rebecca Ala-Martin designated her brother, Atty. Oscar Ala, as her attorney-in-fact to withdraw funds from her dollar account to pay for a lot. Atty. Ala suggested transferring the funds to Prudential Bank, where his wife Marilene and sister Susan Ala-Quimbo worked. Rebecca agreed. Atty. Ala withdrew the money via a bank draft and gave it to Marilene, who delivered it to Susan for deposit. Instead, Susan and her husband Manuel entrusted the draft to Josefina Rey of China Banking Corporation for a higher interest rate. Rey absconded with the money. Rebecca filed a criminal case for estafa against Marilene and spouses Manuel and Susan Quimbo.
During trial, the court reversed the order of trial, directing the defense to present evidence first based on the accused’s Joint Counter-Affidavits, which detailed the fund’s transfer and loss. The defense eventually waived its right to present evidence. The prosecution then presented evidence on civil liability over defense objection. The trial court acquitted the accused on reasonable doubt but found them civilly liable to Rebecca.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting the accused despite the existence of their Joint Counter-Affidavits, which petitioner claims are judicial admissions proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The acquittal was based on valid legal grounds. First, the prosecution failed to formally offer the Joint Counter-Affidavits as evidence for the criminal aspect during the proper stage of the trial. Documents not formally offered cannot be considered by the court. The prosecution only offered them during the presentation of evidence on civil liability, which was procedurally incorrect for proving criminal guilt.
Second, a significant portion of the prosecution’s case relied on the testimony of Atty. Oscar Ala, Marilene’s husband. The trial court expunged his testimony upon Marilene’s motion invoking marital privilege. This exclusion also affected the related Joint Counter-Affidavit he co-signed, thereby weakening the crucial link in the prosecution’s evidence. Consequently, the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal, being a final judgment, is protected by the doctrine of double jeopardy. No grave abuse of discretion was found in the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence and its decision to acquit.