G.R. No. 187409; November 16, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, FELIX FLORECE, JOSE FLORECE, AND JUSTINO FLORECE, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND SOCORRO FLORECE, Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a criminal complaint for falsification of public document under Article 172 of the Penal Code filed by petitioners Felix, Jose, and Justino Florece (for themselves and on behalf of their deceased brothers) against Hilario Florece and his wife, respondent Socorro Florece. The petitioners are heirs of the late spouses Gavino and Clara Florece, registered owners of a parcel of land in Camarines Sur. After their parents’ death, the heirs orally partitioned the land. In 2003, when Felix attempted to build on the land, Hilario protested, claiming ownership by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 21, 1973, allegedly executed by the petitioners in favor of Hilario’s parents. The petitioners denied executing the deed and filed a complaint. The Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause, and an Information was filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Nabua-Bato, Camarines Sur. The MCTC convicted Hilario and Socorro, presuming them to be the material authors of the falsification as they possessed and used the deed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City affirmed the conviction. Hilario died, and Socorro appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, while concurring that the deed was forged, acquitted Socorro, noting that she and Hilario were not parties to the deed and there was no proof of their participation in the falsification. The petitioners then filed this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in acquitting respondent Socorro Florece, particularly on grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process raised by the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and upheld the acquittal of Socorro Florece.
1. On Extrinsic Fraud and Due Process: The Court found no extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud involves acts outside the trial that prevent a party from presenting their case, such as deception or keeping a party away from court. The records showed that in the CA proceedings, the People of the Philippines was represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which participated fully. The petitioners, as private complainants, were not parties to the criminal case but merely witnesses for the prosecution. Their inability to participate in the CA proceedings was immaterial, as the right to appeal in criminal cases belongs solely to the State through the Solicitor General, except for the civil aspect. No denial of due process was extant.
2. On Timeliness of the Petition: The petition was filed out of time. Under Rule 45, a petition for review must be filed within 15 days from notice of the CA decision. The petitioners received the CA Decision on February 10, 2009, making the deadline February 25, 2009. However, they filed the petition only on April 27, 2009. The Court refused to suspend the rules, as the petitioners failed to provide a cogent explanation for the delay. The invocation of “substantial justice” is not a magic wand to excuse non-compliance with procedural rules.
3. On Double Jeopardy: A review of the CA’s acquittal is barred by the constitutional right against double jeopardy. A verdict of acquittal is immediately final, and re-examining its merits would place the accused in jeopardy for the same offense.
Therefore, the petition was denied for being filed out of time, lacking merit on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and due process, and because a review of an acquittal is prohibited by double jeopardy.