G.R. No. 246674 , June 30, 2020
Jorge E. Auro, represented by his heirs, Jomar O. Auro and Marjorie O. Auro-Gonzales, Petitioners, vs. Johanna A. Yasis, represented by Achilles A. Yasis, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jorge E. Auro was charged with falsification of a public document under the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about January 7, 2005, he falsified a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale by making it appear that respondent Johanna A. Yasis participated as a vendor and affixed her signature, when in fact she was residing in the United States and did not participate. The falsification led to the cancellation of Johanna’s tax declaration and the issuance of a new one in Jorge’s favor. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) found Jorge guilty. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Jorge, applying the equipoise rule due to the prosecution’s failure to present a handwriting expert to prove the falsity of the signature. However, the RTC ordered the cancellation of the tax declaration issued in Jorge’s name, treating the Deed of Sale as a mere private document because the notary public, Atty. David S. Eñano, Jr., had no existing notarial commission in 2005, Johanna’s Community Tax Certificate was issued after the deed’s date, and Johanna was abroad. Jorge appealed the civil aspect (cancellation of tax declaration) to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC. During the appeal, Jorge died and was substituted by his heirs. Petitioners now argue before the Supreme Court that the cancellation of the tax declaration is a separate issue that should be threshed out in a different proceeding.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court and the CA committed a serious error of law in ordering the cancellation of the tax declaration as part of the adjudication in the civil aspect of the criminal case for falsification.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The Court ruled that the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense is deemed instituted with the criminal action, unless a separate reservation is made, which was not done here. Therefore, Jorge’s appeal of the civil liability was proper. The Court held that civil liability under Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code includes restitution, which means restoring the original condition. The acquittal based on the equipoise rule (where prosecution and defense evidence are evenly balanced) does not automatically extinguish civil liability. The Deed of Sale was defective due to invalid notarization (notary lacked commission, Johanna was abroad, and her community tax certificate was dated later), making it a private document that could not effect a transfer of ownership or justify a new tax declaration. Consequently, ordering the cancellation of the tax declaration issued in Jorge’s name was a proper form of restitution to place Johanna back in her original position before the alleged fraud. The cancellation is integrally related to the criminal act charged, as the tax declaration would not have been issued without the defective deed.