THIRD DIVISION the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses,

existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their

[G.R. No. 78777. September 2, 1992.] relation to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the
situation.’ (See Lim v. Calaguas, 83 Phil. 796, 799, and Mackay Radio &
MERLIN P. CAIÑA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and Tel. Co. v. Rich, 28 SCRA 699, 705, cited in Moran, Comments on the
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH IV, CAGAYAN DE Rules, 1979 ed., p. 474) . . .
ORO CITY, Respondent.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. — Questions on
Jatico & Arnado Law Office for Petitioner. whether or not there was a preponderance of evidence to justify the award
of damages or whether or not there was a causal connection between the
Jaime Y. Sindiong for Respondents. given set of facts and the damage suffered by the private complainant or
whether or not the act from which civil liability might arise exists are
SYLLABUS questions of fact. In this regard, the petitioner’s case should not have been
elevated to this Court since a petition for review on certiorariunder Rule 45
1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; GUIDELINES FOR APPEALS IN CIVIL AND allows only questions of law to be raised (Section 2, Rule 45, Rules of
CRIMINAL CASES EXCEPT WHERE THE PENALTY OF DEATH, RECLUSION Court). The proper procedure that he should have adopted was to file a
PERPETUA OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT IS IMPOSED. — The procedure petition for review with the Court of Appeals within 15 days from notice of
adopted by the petitioner in this case is improper. This is evident from the judgment pointing out errors of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or
fact that the petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Regional Trial Court modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed (See
to the Supreme Court claiming that the issue raised is a pure question of Resolution of Court of Appeals dated August 12, 1971, par. 22 [b] of
law. The proper procedure that should have been followed was to file a Interim Rules of Court and Sec. 22, BP 129).
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This
Court en banc, through a resolution entitled Murillo v. Consul, UDK-9748, 4. CRIMINAL LAW; DAMAGE TO PROPERTY THRU RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE;
March 1, 1990 laid down the following guidelines for appeals in civil cases CIVIL LIABILITY THEREOF; EXTINGUISHED BY THE ABSENCE OF ACT THAT
and criminal cases except where the penalty of death, reclusion MIGHT GIVE RISE THERETO. — It is clear from the decision of the
perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed: (1) If an appeal is attempted Municipal Trial Court that there was no finding of recklessness, negligence
from a judgment of a Regional Trial Court by notice of appeal, that appeal and imprudence on the part of the accused. We quote: "With respect to
can and should never go to this Court, regardless of any statement in the the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is the thinking of the court
notice that the court of choice is the Supreme Court; (2) If an appeal by that the most important or paramount factor in cases of this nature, is to
notice of appeal is taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of evidently prove the recklessness, negligence and imprudence of the
Appeals and in the latter Court, the appellant raises naught but issues of accused. The prosecution failed to show a clear and convincing evidence of
law the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; (3) If an appeal such recklessness, negligence and imprudence. Prosecution witness Rene
is essayed from the judgment rendered by a Regional Trial Court in the Abas stated that the speed of the jeep of the accused was on a regular
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction by notice of appeal, instead of by speed or not so fast or just the very speed the jeep can run. It can be
petition for review, the appeal is inefficacious and should be dismissed; gleaned therefore from the decision that the act from which civil liability
and (4) it is only through petitions for review on certiorari that the might arise does not exist. It is noted by the Court that in the dispositive
appellate jurisdiction of this Court may properly be invoked. portion of the decision of the Municipal Trial Court, the accused’ (petitioner
in this case) acquittal was based on the ground that his guilt was not
2. ID.; ID.; QUESTION OF LAW AND QUESTION OF FACT; proved beyond reasonable doubt making it possible for Dolores Perez to
DISTINGUISHED. — The case of Cheesman v. Intermediate Appellate prove and recover damages. (See Article 29, Civil Code) However, from a
Court, 193 SCRA 93, 100-101 [1991], distinguishes between questions of reading of the decision of the Municipal Trial Court, there is a clear
fact and questions of law. We quote: ". . . a question of law — which exists showing that the act from which civil liability might arise does not exist.
‘when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain Civil liability is then extinguished. (See Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 129
state of facts’ — ‘there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference SCRA 558, 570 [1984])
arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts,’ (Ramos, Et. Al. v.
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the P.I., Et Al., 19 SCRA 289, 292, citing II
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 2784, and II Martin, Rules of Court, 255; SEE
also, Francisco, The Rules of Court, Annotated and Commented, 1968, ed.,
Vol. III, pp. 485-488) or when the ‘query necessarily invites calibration of
DECISION wit:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing observations, this court hereby
RESOLVES to reconsider its decision dated February 17, 1986 and
Merlin P. Caiña, whom we denominate petitioner, questions the award of consequently to AFFIRM as it hereby affirms in toto the decision appealed
damages made by the Municipal Trial Court while acquitting him of the from as far as the civil aspect of the same is concerned." (Rollo, p. 43)
charge of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. The
award of damages was initially deleted on appeal but was later on As a result of such reversal, the petitioner filed this appeal raising one
reinstated by the Regional Trial Court upon a motion for reconsideration. legal issue to be resolved:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

The records of this case were sent to the Court of Appeals inspite of the "THAT THE TRIAL COURT AND THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
appellant’s error in filing a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on a ERRED IN AWARDING CIVIL LIABILITY AGAINST THE HEREIN PETITIONER
pure question of law. The appellate court forwarded the case to us. AND THE SAID AWARD IS VOID AND ILLEGAL." (Rollo, p. 26)
Instead of rejecting the case at that time, this Court considered the issue
sufficiently important to warrant this review. The completed records were The petitioner alleges that the award for damages is void and illegal as
re-assigned to the undersigned ponente for study and report preparatory there was no finding of any preponderance of evidence as to the causal
to full court deliberations only on August 5, 1992.cralawnad connection between the given set of facts and the damage suffered by the
private complainant. In fact, there is a clear showing from the face of the
The facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library decision of the trial court that the fact from which the civil liability might
arise does not exist.
The petitioner, Merlin P. Caiña, Accused of reckless imprudence resulting in
serious physical injuries, was acquitted of the criminal charge against him Before discussing the merits of this case, we first discuss the procedural
in a decision rendered by the Municipal Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, aspect.
Branch 4. However, the petitioner was ordered to pay the private
complainant, Dolores Perez, the sum of P2,893.40 representing actual The procedure adopted by the petitioner in this case is improper. This is
damages. The dispositive portion of said decision evident from the fact that the petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court claiming that the issue raised is
a pure question of law (Records, p. 805). The proper procedure that
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, and for failure of the prosecution to should have been followed was to file a petition for review
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is or certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles law library :
hereby acquitted. red

"However, the accused is ordered to pay the private complainant the The Regional Trial Court in its order issued March 31, 1987 (Records, p.
amount of P2,893.40 representing the actual damages incurred by the 807) correctly reminded the petitioner that the appeal to the Supreme
private complainant in connection with this case" (Records, pp. 479-480). Court shall be through a petition for certiorari governed by Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. However, the Regional Trial Court forwarded the records of
The petitioner, questioning the award of damages, appealed to the the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in turn, noting in
Regional Trial Court. The Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch the Notice of Appeal that only questions of law were involved, thereupon
24 rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as transmitted the records of said case to this Court (Rollo, p. 1).
follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
This Court en banc, through a resolution entitled Murillo v. Consul, UDK-
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing observations, the decision 9748, March 1, 1990 laid down the following guidelines for appeals in civil
pertaining to the civil aspect only, appealed from, is hereby REVERSED and cases and criminal cases except where the penalty of death, reclusion
a new one entered, absolving accused of civil liability. It is understood that perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed: (1) If an appeal is attempted
this decision does not touch the trial court’s decision on the acquittal of the from a judgment of a Regional Trial Court by notice of appeal, that appeal
accused." (Rollo, p. 33) can and should never go to this Court, regardless of any statement in the
notice that the court of choice is the Supreme Court; (2) If an appeal by
The private complainant subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration notice of appeal is taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of
upon which the Regional Trial Court reversed its former decision, to Appeals and in the latter Court, the appellant raises naught but issues of
law the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; (3) If an appeal pointing out errors of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or
is essayed from, the judgment rendered by a Regional Trial Court in the modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed (See
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction by notice of appeal, instead of by Resolution of Court of Appeals dated August 12, 1971, par. 22 [b] of
petition for review, the appeal is inefficacious and should be dismissed; Interim Rules of Court and Sec. 22, BP 129).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
and (4) it is only through petitions for review on certiorari that the
appellate jurisdiction of this Court may properly be invoked. However, this Court noting that this case was last acted upon by the
Regional Trial Court six (6) years ago and the records of the case have
Applying the rules abovementioned, the Court of Appeals should not have already been brought to this Court, has decided to delve on the merits of
transmitted the records to this Court. the case.

But even assuming arguendo that a petition for review on certiorari under The petitioner’s contention is meritorious. We grant the petition.
Rule 45 was correctly filed, from a reading of the petitioner’s brief, it can
be seen that what petitioner is raising is a question of fact. It is clear from the decision of the Municipal Trial Court that there was no
finding of recklessness, negligence and imprudence on the part of the
The case of Cheesman v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 193 SCRA 93, accused. We quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
100-101 [1991], distinguishes between question of fact and questions of
law. We quote:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary "With respect to the evidence presented by the prosecution, it, is the
x           x           x thinking of the court that the most important or paramount factor in cases
of this nature, is to evidently prove the recklessness, negligence and
imprudence of the accused. The prosecution failed to show a clear and
". . . a question of law — which exists ‘when the doubt or difference arises convincing evidence of such recklessness, negligence and imprudence.
as to what the law is on a certain state of facts’ — ‘there is a question of Prosecution witness Rene Abas stated that the speed of the jeep of the
fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of accused was on a regular speed or not so fast or just the very speed the
alleged facts,’ (Ramos, Et. Al. v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the P.I., Et Al., jeep can run. (Decision, p. 5, Records, p. 477, Emphasis Supplied)
19 SCRA 289, 292, citing II Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 2784, and II Martin,
Rules of Court, 255; SEE also, Francisco, The Rules of Court, Annotated It can be gleaned therefore from the decision that the act from which civil
and Commented, 1968, ed., Vol. III, pp 485-488) or when the ‘query liability might arise does not exist.
necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the
credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding It is noted by the Court that in the dispositive portion of the decision of the
circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and the Municipal Trial Court, the accused’ (petitioner in this case) acquittal was
probabilities of the situation.’ (See Lim v. Calaguas, 83 Phil. 796, 799, and based on the ground that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable
Mackay Radio Tel. Co. v. Rich, 28 SCRA 699, 705, cited in Moran, doubt making it possible for Dolores Perez to prove and recover damages.
Comments on the Rules, 1979 ed., p. 474). (See Article 29, Civil Code) However, from a reading of the decision of the
Municipal Trial Court, there is a clear showing that the act from which civil
x           x           x liability might arise does not exist. Civil liability is then extinguished. (See
Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 558, 570
[1984])chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Questions on whether or not there was a preponderance of evidence to
justify the award of damages or whether or not there was a causal WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned order of the
connection between the given set of facts and the damage suffered by the Regional Trial Court issued on July 14, 1986 is SET ASIDE while the
private complainant or whether or not the act from which civil liability Regional Trial Court’s decision issued on February 17, 1986 reversing the
might arise exists are questions of fact. decision of the Municipal Trial Court pertaining to the civil aspect,
absolving accused of civil liability, is hereby REINSTATED.
In this regard, the petitioner’s case should not have been elevated to this
Court since a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 allows only Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.
questions of law to be raised (Section 2, Rule 45, Rules of Court).
Feliciano, J., is on leave.
The proper procedure that he should have adopted was to file a petition for
review with the Court of Appeals within 15 days from notice of judgment