Romeo Lorenzo vs. People G.R. No. 152335 DECEMBER 19, 2005 Facts

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

ROMEO LORENZO vs. PEOPLE declared her non-suited and dismissed the complaint.

Complainant
G.R. No. 152335 DECEMBER 19, 2005 moved for reconsideration and the motion was granted. Petitioner
sought reconsideration of the order but was denied. Hence, he filed
FACTS: a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC judge. The appellate court
Petitioner Romeo Lorenzo was found guilty of Estafa under Artilce granted the petition for certiorari since it found that complainant
315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. According to the information, had filed her motion for reconsideration long after the order
petitioner and his wife, Carmelita Lorenzo, by means of false dismissing the complaint had become final and executory, and the
manifestations and fraudulent representations that they have the RTC had already lost jurisdiction over the case.
lawful and legal rights and interest over a house and lot in San
Pedro, Laguna, sold to Myrna Minggoy, the said rights and interests, Evidently, the civil case was not decided on the merits and no
for the consideration of Php 150,000.00. judgment was ever rendered. However, the Rules of Court provide
that the failure of the plaintiff to appear at the pre-trial shall be
It was alleged that the property was mortgaged wit the GSIS and if cause for dismissal of the action with prejudice, unless otherwise
she agreed to buy the property, she would have to continue making ordered by the court. The record is bereft of any evidence that
the mortgage payments. The Statement of Account showed that would indicate that the dismissal of the civil case was without
petitioner had arrears amounting to Php307,784.32. Minggoy prejudice; hence, we could only assume that it was with prejudice.
agreed to buy the said property. This being so, the dismissal of the civil case bars recovery of civil
indemnity by the offended party in the criminal case.
However, when Minggoy sought to occupy the property, petitioner
refused to leave the house. Minggoy went to the GSIS to confirm
ownership of the property by petitioner and found out that the
latter had cancelled the Deed of Conditional Sale it had issued to
petitioner for failure to settle his account.

Petitioner, however, raises a point that should be ruled in his favor.


He argues that the Court of Appeals should not have ordered him to
indemnify complainant in the amount of ₱150,000.00, saying that
complainant had instituted a separate civil action for recovery of the
₱150,000.00 plus damages, but the same was dismissed by the
Court of Appeals on 29 November 1996 in a petition for certiorari in
CA-G.R. SP No. 40468. Hence, petitioner asserts, to award indemnity
would be tantamount to making an award on the basis of civil
liability which has been subject of a separate case already dismissed
with finality.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an order of indemnification of Php150,000.00 is


proper.

RULING:

NO. Our laws allow the filing of a separate civil action for damages
against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not such offender
is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that
the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also
criminally, to recover damages on both scores. The offended party
would be entitled only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the
awards made in the two cases vary.

According to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40468,


complainant had filed on 22 September 1995 a verified complaint
for Recovery of Sum of Money with Damages against petitioner
before the same RTC of San Pedro, Laguna, docketed as Civil Case
No. SPL-0015. However, complainant failed to appear at the pre-trial
conference and did not file her pre-trial brief. Hence, the RTC

You might also like