THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAMERTO S. MIRANDA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Mamerto S. Miranda was charged before the Court of First Instance of Quezon
City with the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents,
under the provisions of article 315, in relation to article 172 of the Revised
Penal Code. After trial, the court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds that the evidence presented by the
prosecution fails to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt;
it failed to show that the accused had taken advantage of his position and
abused the confidence reposed on him by the complaining witnesses; and it also
failed to show that the complaining spouses were made to sign all the papers and
documents pertaining to the loan by inducement and representation exercised on
their persons by the accused. However, the Court also finds that while the
complaining witness Mariano Mojica, at least, was fully aware of the second loan
of P2,000.00, the said amount was not received by the spouses but was retained
by the accused under an arrangement made by him and Mojica. Therefore the Court
acquits the accused from the charge contained in the information upon a
reasonable doubt but finds him civilly liable for the proceeds of the loan of
P2,000.00 contracted by the complaining spouses from the Rural Bank of
Novaliches, together with all expenses incident thereto, and he is hereby
ordered to pay the said amount for the purpose of discharging the said
obligation with the Rural Bank of Novaliches. The bond for the provisional
liberty of the accused is hereby cancelled; with
costs-de-oficio.”

Accused Miranda appealed from the above decision, assailing that portion
ordering him to pay the sum of P2,000.00. There are no questions of fact
involved.

In his brief, appellant contends that the civil liability which is included
in the criminal action as provided for in Section 1, Rule 107 of the Rules, is
that arising from and as a consequence of the criminal act. Since the court had
acquitted the appellant, on the principal ground that the money had been
received or retained by accused-appellant pursuant to an arrangement between the
latter and the offended party Mojica, in order to conceal the transaction from
the other offended party, Mrs. Mojica, it was improper and unwarranted to impose
civil liability in the same criminal action. The position of the appellant is
sustained by the Solicitor General who, in his brief, recommended that the
portion of the decision ordering the appellant to pay or making him liable for
the sum of P2,000.00, be set aside.

The issue involved in this case has been passed upon by Us in several cases.
Thus, in the identical case of People vs. Pantig, 97 Phil, 749; We said—

“The appellant argues that the civil liability which is included in the
criminal action is that arising from and as a consequence of the criminal act,
and that since the defendant-appellant was acquitted in the criminal case, no
civil liability arising from the criminal charge could be imposed upon him.

* * * * * * *

The trial court found as a fact that the sum of P1,200.00, ordered to be paid
in the judgment of acquittal, was received by the defendant-appellant as loan.
This finding is inconsistent with the existence of the criminal act charged in
the information. The liability of the defendant for the return of the amount so
received arises from a civil contract, not from a criminal act, and may not be
enforced in the criminal cases.” (People vs. Pantig, 97 Phil., 748.) (See also
MRRCO vs. Baltazar, 93 Phil., 7151; 490 Offi. Gaz. 3874; Pueblo vs. Abellera, 69
Phil. 623; People vs. Mañago, 69 Phil 496).

In the present case, instead of a loan, the appellant retained the money
because of an arrangement with Mrs. Mojica, heretofore mentioned.

Verily, the findings of the trial court on the matter of civil liability is
inconsistent with the non-existence of the criminal act charged in the
information (People vs. Pantig, supra).

In view of the foregoing, that portion of the decision appealed from, which
orders the defendant-appellant Mamerto S. Miranda to pay the sum of P2,000.00 to
the com-appealed from, which orders the defendant-appellant Ma-fended parties
the right to institute the corresponding civil action for the recovery of the
said amount. No costs.

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