GR 37320; (August, 1932) (Digest)
G.R. No. 37320 ; August 15, 1932
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, and ISIDORO ARAGON and TEODORICA RUIZ, offended parties-appellants, vs. VICENTE GUIDO and HONORATA AGUIRRE, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
In a criminal case for qualified theft, the accused were convicted and sentenced. The trial court ordered the stolen jewels recovered to be restored to the owner, Levy Hermanos, Inc. The jewels had been pawned by the thieves with the pawnshops owned by appellants Isidoro Aragon and Teodorica Ruiz. The appellants, as pawnshop owners, appealed that portion of the judgment, arguing they were prejudiced because the order of restitution did not provide for their reimbursement of the loan amounts they advanced for the pledges.
ISSUE
Whether the pawnshop owners (appellants), as third parties to the criminal case, have the right to appeal from the judgment ordering the restitution of the stolen jewels to the owner without provision for their indemnification.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the appellants have the right to appeal. The word “party” in the procedural law (Section 44 of General Orders No. 58) includes not only the government and the accused but also other persons whose substantial rights are affected by the judgment in the criminal proceedings. Since the appellants would be deprived of possession of the jewels (which they held as pledges) without compensation if the order were carried out, they are prejudiced in a substantial right and are therefore interested and necessary parties entitled to intervene and appeal directly in the criminal case. The Court distinguished this from the civil aspect of the accused’s liability for indemnity and emphasized that the appellants, having two potential remedies, cannot be compelled to choose one over the other. The motion to dismiss the appeal was denied.
AI Generated by Armztrong.