LUTGARDA CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HEIRS OF ESTANISLAWA C. REYES, REPRESENTED BY MIGUEL C. REYES, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of
Court to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 31,
1995^[1] and its
Resolution dated December 1,
1995.^[2] The Court
of Appeals dismissed
for being insufficient in substance the Petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus,
which sought to nullify two orders of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch
53, dated April 18, 1994 and May 6, 1994.

The Antecedent Facts

The City Prosecutor of Manila charged petitioner with the crime
of “Estafa
thru Falsification of Public Document” before the Manila Regional Trial
Court.^[3]
Petitioner executed before a
Notary Public in the City of Manila an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication of
a
parcel of land stating that she was the sole surviving heir of the
registered
owner when in fact she knew there were other surviving heirs. Since the
offended
party did not reserve the right to file a separate civil action arising
from the
criminal offense, the civil action was deemed instituted in the criminal
case.

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its
decision dated
January 17, 1994 acquitting petitioner on the ground of reasonable
doubt. In the
same decision, the trial court rendered judgment on the civil aspect of
the
case, ordering the return to the surviving heirs of the parcel of land
located
in Bulacan.^[4]

On January 28, 1994,
petitioner received a copy of the decision.

On February 10, 1994, petitioner filed by registered mail a
motion for
reconsideration dated February 7, 1994, assailing the trial court’s
ruling on
the civil aspect of the criminal case. Petitioner furnished the City
Prosecutor
a copy of the motion by registered mail.

On April 18, 1994, the trial court denied petitioner’s motion
for
reconsideration stating:

“Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration dated February 7,
1994, filed by
the accused through counsel and considering that there is nothing to
show that
the Office of the City Prosecutor was actually furnished or served with a
copy
of the said Motion for Reconsideration within the reglementary period of
fifteen
(15) days from receipt by the accused on January 28, 1994 of a copy of
the
Court’s decision dated January 17, 1994, so that the same is already
final and
executory, let the Motion for Reconsideration be Denied for lack of
merit.”^[5]

Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the trial court’s
order of April
18, 1994. The trial court denied the same in an order dated May 6, 1994,
to wit:

“Under the Interim Rules, no party shall be allowed a second
motion for
reconsideration of a final order or judgment (Sec. 4). The motion of
accused
dated 22 April 1994 is a violation of this rule.

WHEREFORE, said motion is DENIED.”^[6]

Left with no recourse, petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari and
mandamus with the Court of Appeals to nullify the two assailed orders of
the
trial court. Petitioner also asked the Court of Appeals to compel the
trial
court to resolve her motion for reconsideration of the decision dated
February
7, 1994.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On March 31, 1995, the Court of Appeals denied due course to
the petition and
dismissed the case for being insufficient in substance.
The
Court of Appeals
sustained the trial court’s order of April 18, 1994 denying petitioner’s
motion
for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals declared in part:

“Section 10, Rule 13, Rules of Court, provides as follows:

“SEC. 10. Proof of Service. – Proof of
personal service shall
consist of a written admission of the party served, or the affidavit of
the
party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner
of
service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist
of an
affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with Section
5 of
this rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by
such
affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The
registry
return card shall be filed immediately upon receipt thereof by the
sender, or in
lieu thereof the letter unclaimed together with the certified or sworn
copy of
the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.”

Patent from the language of the said section is that in case
service is made
by registered mail, proof of service shall be made by (a) affidavit of
the
person mailing and (b) the registry receipt issued by the mailing
office. Both
must concur. In the case at bench, there was no such affidavit or
registry
receipt when the motion was considered. Thus, respondent Judge cannot be
said to
have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, in
ruling in the manner he did.”^[7]

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s order of
May 6, 1994
denying the subsequent motion for reconsideration, as follows:

“xxx, while there is merit in petitioner’s submission that the
motion for
reconsideration dated April 22, 1994 was not a second motion for
reconsideration
of a final order or judgment, as contemplated in the Interim Rules
because the
motion sought to impugn the order dated 18 April 1994 not on the basis
of the
issues raised in the motion for reconsideration dated 07 February 1994
but on
the erroneous legal conclusion of the order dated May 6, 1994,^[8] this is already
academic. The decision
dated January 7, 1994 had long become final when the second motion for
reconsideration was filed on 03 May 1994. Hence, the pairing Judge who
issued
the order on 06 May 1994 had no more legal competence to promulgate the
same.”^[9]

Finally, the Court of Appeals upheld the assailed decision of
the trial court
on the civil aspect of the case, to wit:

“x x x, the institution of a criminal action carries with it
the civil action
for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense
charged. There
was neither reservation nor waiver of the right to file the civil action

separately nor has one been instituted to the criminal action. Hence,
the civil
action for the civil liability has been impliedly instituted with the
filing of
the criminal case before respondent Judge. This is the law on the
matter. The
proposition submitted by petitioner that the court presided by
respondent Judge
had no jurisdiction over the property because it is located in Bulacan –
outside
the territorial jurisdiction of said court -does not hold water. Being a
civil
liability arising from the offense charged, the governing law is the
Rules of
Criminal Procedure, not the civil procedure rules which pertain to civil
action
arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise to the
suit.”^[10]

In the dispositive portion of its assailed decision, the Court
of Appeals
declared:

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition not being sufficient in
substance is hereby
DENIED DUE COURSE and the case DISMISSED.”^[11]

In a resolution dated December 1, 1995, the Court of Appeals
denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.^[12]

Hence, this petition.

The Issues

In her Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues:

1. “WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING
   THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS
   DULY FURNISHED WITH COPY OF THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
   WITH
   RESPECT TO THE DECISION ON THE CIVIL ASPECT OF CRIMINAL CASE NO.
   87-54773 (SIC)
   OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 53.”

2. “WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT
   THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
   OF MANILA HAD JURISDICTION TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE CIVIL ASPECT OF
   CRIMINAL
   CASE NO. 87-57743 FOR FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT, INVOLVING A
   PROPERTY
   LOCATED IN BULACAN.”

3. “WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING
   THAT THE PETITIONER WAS
   DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 53,
   RENDERED
   DECISION ON THE CIVIL ASPECT OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 87-57743.”^[13]

The Ruling of the Court

We grant the petition.

When the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt but is
adjudged civilly
liable, his motion for reconsideration of the civil aspect must be
served not
only on the prosecution, also on the offended party if the latter is not

represented by a private counsel. Moreover, if the trial court has
jurisdiction
over the subject matter and over the accused, and the crime was
committed within
its territorial jurisdiction, it necessarily exercises jurisdiction over
all
matters that the law requires the court to resolve. This includes the
power to
order the restitution to the offended party of real property located in
another
province.

Absence of Proof of Service

The first issue is whether petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration dated
February 7, 1994 complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 6,
Rule 15
on proof of service. Petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals erred
in
sustaining the trial court’s finding that the City Prosecutor was not
duly and
timely furnished with petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of
February 7,
1994.

Petitioner asserts that both copies of the motion for
reconsideration were
sent to the trial court and the City Prosecutor by registered mail on
February
10, 1994. Petitioner relies on jurisprudence that the date of mailing is
the
date of filing, arguing that the date of mailing of both motions was on
February
10, 1994. Petitioner maintains that the motion was properly filed within
the
15-day period, citing the registry return card which shows actual
receipt on
February 22, 1994 by the City Prosecutor of a copy of the motion.

The Court of Appeals, noting that petitioner received a copy of
the decision
on January 28, 1994, stated that petitioner had until February 12, 1994
to
appeal the decision or file a motion for reconsideration. The Court of
Appeals
ruled that petitioner, by filing a motion for reconsideration without
any proof
of service, merely filed a scrap of paper and not a motion for
reconsideration.
Hence, the reglementary period of petitioner to appeal continued to run
and
lapsed after the 15-day period, making the trial court’s decision final
and
executory.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner patently
failed to comply
with the mandatory requirements on proof of service insofar as the
public
prosecutor is concerned. The Court has stressed time and again that
non-compliance with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 is a fatal defect.
The
well-settled rule is that a motion which fails to comply with Sections
4, 5, and
6 of Rule 15 is a useless piece of paper. If filed, such motion is not
entitled
to judicial cognizance and does not stop the running of the reglementary
period
for filing the requisite pleading.^[14]

Section 6 of Rule 15 reads:

“SEC. 6. – Proof of service to be filed
with
motions. – No motion shall be acted upon by
the court,
without proof of
service of the notice thereof.”^[15] (Emphasis supplied)

From the language of the rule, proof of service is mandatory.
Without such
proof of service to the adverse party, a motion is nothing but an empty
formality deserving no judicial cognizance.

Section 13 of Rule 13 further requires that:

“SEC. 13. Proof of
Service. – x x x. If service is
made by registered mail, proof shall be made by
such affidavit and
the registry receipt issued by the mailing
office. The registry
return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender,
or in
lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn
copy of
the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.”^[16] (Emphasis supplied)

If service is by registered mail, proof of service consists of
the
affidavit of the person
mailing and the
registry receipt, both
of which must be appended to
the motion. Absent one or the other, or worse both, there is no proof of

service.

In the instant case, an examination of the record shows that
petitioner
received a copy of the trial court’s decision of January 17, 1994 on
January 28,
1994. Within the reglementary period to appeal, petitioner filed on
February 10,
1994, by registered mail, a motion for reconsideration. However,
petitioner
failed to attach both the affidavit and the registry receipt to the
motion for
reconsideration as required by the Rules.

The defect of the motion is apparent on its face. Petitioner’s
motion for
reconsideration was a mere scrap of paper as it did not contain the
required
proof of service.

However, petitioner is contesting that part of the decision of
the trial
court finding him civilly liable even as he is acquitted from the
criminal
charge on reasonable doubt. This raises the issue of whether the public
prosecutor is the only proper party to be served with petitioner’s
motion for
reconsideration. The present Rules do not require the accused to serve a
copy of
his motion for reconsideration on the offended party who may not be
represented
by a private counsel. The Rules require service only on the public
prosecutor if
the offended party is not represented by a private counsel.

A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and
the
prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy. However, either the offended party
or the
accused may appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the
acquittal of the
accused. The public prosecutor has generally no interest in appealing
the civil
aspect of a decision acquitting the accused.

The acquittal ends the work of the public prosecutor and the
case is
terminated as far as he is concerned.

The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision
are the
offended party and the accused. Thus, any appeal or motion for
reconsideration
of the civil aspect of a decision in a criminal case must be served on
the other
real party in interest. If the offended party appeals or moves for
reconsideration, the accused is necessarily served a copy of the
pleading
through his counsel.

If the accused appeals or moves for reconsideration, a lacuna
arises if the
offended party is not represented by a private counsel. In such a
situation,
under the present Rules only the public prosecutor is served the notice
of
appeal or a copy of the motion for reconsideration. To fill in this
lacuna in
the present Rules, we require that henceforth if the accused appeals or
moves
for reconsideration, he should serve a copy of his pleading on the
offended
party himself if the latter is not represented by a private counsel.
This is in
addition to service on the public prosecutor who is the counsel of
record of the
State.

In the instant case, the Court notes that petitioner did not
serve a copy of
her motion for reconsideration on the offended party who was not
represented by
a private counsel in the trial court. In the interest of justice, and
considering that the present Rules are silent on the matter, it is only
fair to
give petitioner a period of five days from receipt of this decision
within which
to serve a copy of her motion for reconsideration on the offended party.

Trial court’s jurisdiction over the civil aspect.

Petitioner maintains that the Court of Appeals erred in finding
that the
trial court had jurisdiction to render judgment on the civil aspect of
the
criminal case. Petitioner asserts that the Manila trial court had no
jurisdiction over the parcel of land in Bulacan which is outside the
trial
court’s territorial jurisdiction.

In upholding the trial court’s jurisdiction, the Court of
Appeals held:

“Being a civil liability arising from the offense charged, the
governing law
is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the civil procedure rules which
pertain
to civil action arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise to
the
suit.”^[17]

We agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner asserts that the location of the subject property
outside the
court’s territorial jurisdiction deprived the trial court of
jurisdiction over
the civil aspect of the criminal case. This argument is contrary to the
law and
the rules.

There are three important requisites which must be present
before a court can
acquire criminal jurisdiction. First, the court must have jurisdiction
over the
subject matter. Second, the court must have jurisdiction over the
territory
where the offense was committed. Third, the court must have jurisdiction
over
the person of the accused.^[18] In the
instant case, the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter
as the
law has conferred on the court the power to hear and decide cases
involving
estafa through falsification of a public document. The trial court also
had
jurisdiction over the offense charged since the crime was committed
within its
territorial jurisdiction. The trial court also acquired jurisdiction
over the
person of accused-petitioner because she voluntarily submitted to the
court’s
authority.

Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and
over the person
of the accused, and the crime was committed within its territorial
jurisdiction,
the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the
law
requires the court to resolve. One of the issues in a criminal case is
the civil
liability of the accused arising from the crime. Article 100 of the
Revised
Penal Code provides that “[E]very person criminally liable for a felony
is also
civilly liable.” Article 104 of the same Code states that “civil
liability x x x
includes restitution.”

The action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted
in the
criminal action unless reserved by the offended party.^[19] In the instant case,
the offended party
did not reserve the civil action and the civil action was deemed
instituted in
the criminal action. Although the trial court acquitted petitioner of
the crime
charged, the acquittal, grounded on reasonable doubt, did not extinguish
the
civil liability.^[20] Thus, the Manila
trial court had jurisdiction to decide the civil aspect of the instant
case –
ordering restitution even if the parcel of land is located in Bulacan.

Consequently, while we find no reversible error in the decision
of the Court
of Appeals as to proof of service and the trial court’s jurisdiction on
the
civil aspect, we remand this case for further proceedings in the
interest of
justice.

WHEREFORE, petitioner is given
five (5) days from receipt of
this decision within which to serve a copy of her motion for
reconsideration on
the offended party. Let this case be remanded to the trial court for
further
proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), and
Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on leave.

---

^[1] Penned by
Associate Justice
Buenaventura J. Guerrero and concurred in by Associate Justices Asaali
S. Isnani
and Antonio P. Solano, Rollo, pp. 8-13.
^[2] Rollo, p. 14.
^[3] Docketed as Criminal
Case No. 87-57743 in
Branch 53 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
^[4] The trial court
declared that petitioner
held the parcel of land merely as trustee of the true surviving heirs of
the
registered owner. The trial court ordered petitioner not to encumber or
dispose
of the said property at the risk of incurring criminal liability.
Finally, the
trial court ordered the cancellation of the title in the name of
petitioner and
the issuance of a new title in the name of the heirs, upon reimbursement
to
petitioner of the P2,500.00 she paid to redeem the property.

^[5]
Rollo, p. 46.
^[6] Rollo, p. 50.
^[7] Rollo, p. 11.
^[8] This should read April
18, 1994.
^[9] Rollo, p. 12.
^[10] Ibid.
^[11] Ibid., p. 13.

^[12]
Supra, see note 2.
^[13] Rollo, pp. 144-145.
^[14] Del Castillo vs.
Aguinaldo, 212 SCRA 169
(1992); Cui vs. Madayag, 245 SCRA 1 (1995); Prado vs. Veridiano II, 204
SCRA 654
(1991).
^[15] This is taken from
Section 6 of the former Rule, which reads:

“SEC. 6. – Proof of service to be filed with motions. – No
motion shall be
acted upon by the court, without proof of service of the notice thereof,
except
when the court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party or
parties are
not affected.”

^[16] This
is taken from Section 10 of
the old Rule.
^[17] Supra, see note 9.

^[18]
Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law,
Volume IV, 1992 Edition, p. 3.
^[19]
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which was
the same
rule as the 1985 Rules insofar as civil liability ex-delicto was
concerned.

^[20] The
last paragraph of Section 2,
Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:
“The
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the
civil
action. However, the civil action based on delict may be deemed
extinguished if
there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the
act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.” This
is
substantially the same rule as in the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure.