THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, NG KOK, CORPORATION ALSO KNOWN AS WORLD-WIDE CORPORATION (WAPSO CO), PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. HILARIO DE CHAVEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELL…

“DAHIL DITO at dahil din sa
dagling pagtanggap ng kasalanan at sa kanilang ginawang pagsuko sa may kapangyarihan ay ang mga nasasakdal na ito ay
hinahatulan na mabilanggo ng tig-IISANG BUWAN (1 mo.) at ISANG ARAW (1 day) at
magbayad ng gugol sa usapin ang bawa’t isa sa kanila. Sapagka’t ang
“kasalanang ito ay naganap sa Sariaya, Quezon,
kung kaya’t ang niga nahstulan ay daon sa kulimgan panglalawigan ng Quezon
magdudusa.”

As the above judgment did not
mention the civil liability of the accused, or order a restitution of the
stolen goods, the offended party, by counsel, and within the reglementary
period, presented a motion, asking the court to provide accordingly. In an
Order of October 16, 1961, the municipal court denied the
motion, stating—

“The plea of guilty in ore
tenus by all the accused in this case has legal effects only within the confine
of their admission of all the elements of the crime charged and does not
traverse that legal demarcation for the Court to determine the nature and
extent of civil liability of the accused to be founded solely on mere recitals
in the complaint. Civil liability in this case being evidentiary, the Court
cannot exercise discretion alone in determining the nature and extent of civil
liability upon mere allegations in the Complaint.”

The decision and the Order denying
the motion for reconsideration is now before Us on appeal
on three (3) errors, supposedly committed by the Municipal Court of Lucena City, which converge on the proposition
of whether or not under the facts obtaining in this case, the trial court was
correct in denying the motion for reconsideration. The accused-appellees did
not care to intervene. The Solicitor General asked to be relieved from filing
brief as appellee, as he said, the government has no
right or interest to protect.

There seem to be no conflict
regarding the fact that the plea of guilty admits the material allegations of
the information or complaint and that “with the institution of the
criminal action, the civil liability is deemed included therewith, except when
there is a waiver or reservation on the part of the
complainant, which was not done in the present case (People vs. Pantig,
97 Phil., 748, cited in People vs. Miranda, L-17389, Aug. 31, 1962). The
trial judge in not having included civil liability in the decision stated that
it cannot exercise discretion alone in, determining the liability upon the mere
allegations, the same being evidentiary. Considering, however, the fact that
the trial court’s attention was drawn to the existence of a lapsus in the
decision, in the motion for reconsideration filed by the complainant, within
the reglementary period, and taking into account the petition to supply what
had been omitted, the trial judge could have set the motion for reconsideration
for hearing, in order to receive evidence, as to the value of the properties
admittedly stolen by the accused, or to the return of the goods, if it was
still feasible. In an identical case, where the lower court had failed to
provide for the corresponding civil liability, this court ordered the said case
remanded to the court of origin, for the purpose of determining the civil
liability of the accused (People vs. Ursua, 60 Phil. 252, citing U.S. vs.
Heery, 25 Phil. 600).

Conformably with all the foregoing, the Order appealed from, denying
motion for reconsideration, is hereby set aside and the case is
remanded to the
Municipal Court of Lucena City, for further and appropriate
proceedings. No. costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.