NO. 70 – VILLAREAL v.
ALIGA ● The next day, Dolores went to the bank and ask one of the tellers if a
G.R. No. 166995 | J. Peralta | January 13, 2014
Topic: Rule 121, Motion for new trial or reconsideration (But the case only
mentioned is Rule 122, Appeal)
Doctrine: In criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of
the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting
on behalf of the State. The People may assail a judgment of acquittal only
via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules.
Brief Summary: Aliga was convicted by the RTC for Qualified theft.
However, upon appeal to the CA, the CA reversed the decision and
acquitted Aliga. Petitioner now filed a petition for review on certiorari with
the SC. The SC affirmed the decision of the CA on the ground that
Petitioner has no legal standing to file the case since only the OSG has the
personality to appeal criminal cases and that a decision of acquittal may
only be questioned through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Facts:
● Respondent Aliga was one of the accounting clerks of Petitioner
Villareal in her business Dentrade.
● As an accounting clerk, Aliga has in her custody the personal checks of
Villareal.
● Aliga prepares the personal checks by typing its contents and submits
them to Villareal for his signature. After the signed checks are
delivered to her, she in turn, gives the checks to the messenger for
encashment with the bank.
● In one incident Villareal followed up with Dolores, her governess, for
the payment of the horseback riding lessons of Villareal’s children
● Dolores replied that they were already paid. She then instructed Perez,
another accounting clerk to produce the originals of the returned checks
● Upon examination, Doroteo found that the lessons were already paid
but that there were large encashments reflected on the checks in
typewritten form.
● Doroteo informed Villareal of her findings
● Villareal, then went to the NBI to ask for assistance
● NBI agents then instructed Villareal to sign three checks which were
prepared by Aliga. These checks only reflected, P1,000; P5,000; and
P6,000. The checks were also photocopied.
● These checks were released to Aliga
check in the name of Villareal was encached that day.
● Dolores was informed that a check for P65,000 was encashed that day.
● When Dolores compared the two checks, the P65,000 check and the
P5,000 photocopied check, the check number and date were exactly the
same
● It was obvious that the “6” was added in front of the 5,000.
● Aliga was summoned by Villareal. When Aliga arrived, she then
executed a statement voluntarily giving back the amount of ₱60,000.00
to Villareal
● Aliga alleges that when the NBI agents arrested her, they did not
inform her of her constitutional right to remain silent and to be assisted
by counsel
● RTC found Aliga guilty of Qualified Theft thru Falsification of
Document.
● CA reversed the RTC decision and acquitted Aliga on the ground that
respondent’s right to be informed if her rights were violated.
Issue: W/N Petitioner Villareal can assail the acquittal of Aliga through
a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 - No
Ruling: In criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of
the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting
on behalf of the State. The private complainant or the offended party may
question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the
accused is concerned. The petition should have been filed only by the State
through the OSG. Petitioner lacks the personality or legal standing to
question the CA Decision because it is only the OSG which can bring
actions on behalf of the State in criminal proceedings before the Supreme
Court and the CA.
Section 1, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides that any
party may appeal from a judgment or final order "unless the accused will
thereby be placed in double jeopardy."
The People may assail a judgment of acquittal only via petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules. If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature,
merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the
constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy would be
violated.
While certiorari may be used to correct an abusive acquittal, the petitioner
in such extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the lower
court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its
very power to dispense justice.

Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED

for lack of merit. The acquittal of herein respondent Consuelo C. Aliga by
the Court of Appeals in its April 27, 2004 Decision and August 10, 2004
Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 25581 entitled People of the Philippines v.
Consuelo Cruz Aliga is AFFIRMED.