G.R. No. 82483 September 26, 1990
JAIME BERNARDO AND CYNTHIA BERNARDO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH DIVISION, AND VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Jaime and Cynthia Bernardo were accused of 27 counts of estafa by private respondent Victorias Milling Company (VMC). The allegations involved fraudulent transactions, including double payments, facilitated by Cynthia Bernardo’s position as Executive Secretary to VMC’s Treasurer. Prior to the criminal cases, Jaime Bernardo had filed a separate civil collection case (Civil Case No. 15308) against VMC to recover various sums, including a specific P100,000 deposit he made with VMC as a demonstration of good faith to repay any potential double payments. After trial, the Regional Trial Court acquitted the Bernardos of all criminal charges. However, in the same decision, the trial court ordered VMC to refund the P100,000 deposit to Jaime Bernardo. VMC filed a notice of appeal from this civil aspect of the judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the private offended party, Victorias Milling Company, can appeal the civil aspect of a judgment that also decrees the acquittal of the accused, and whether such an appeal requires the authority of the fiscal or the Solicitor General.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court clarified the distinct remedies available for the criminal and civil aspects of a judgment. A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory as to the criminal liability, and the State, through the Solicitor General, alone can appeal that aspect. Neither an ordinary appeal nor a petition for certiorari is available to challenge an acquittal without violating double jeopardy. However, the civil liability arising from the offense is separate. The Court, citing precedents like People v. Santiago, held that the private offended party retains the right to appeal the civil aspect of the case despite the accused’s acquittal. This appeal concerns only the proprietary interests of the complainant and does not implicate the State’s interest in prosecuting crime. Consequently, such an appeal by the private complainant dispenses with the need for the authority or representation of the fiscal or the Solicitor General. The Court noted that the subject matter of the refund order—the P100,000 deposit—was intimately related to the pending separate civil case filed earlier by Jaime Bernardo, implying it should be fully litigated therein. Thus, VMC was properly allowed to challenge the civil award via certiorari.