[G.R. No. 132396.
September 23, 2002 RTC rendered a decision finding Deutsch,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and MA.
MILAGROS G.
WILSON, Petitioners, vs.  HON. COURT
OF APPEALS, MA. LOURDES DEUTSCH,
NERCY DEMETERIO and EXCEL
MANGUBAT, Respondents.
[G.R. No. 134553. September 23, 2002
NERCY DEMETERIO, and EXCEL
MANGUBAT, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, and MA. MILAGROS
G. WILSON, Respondents.
FACTS:
These are consolidated petitions for
review on certiorari under Rule 45,
assailing the decision dated November 17,
1997 acquitting Ma. Lourdes Deutsch alias
Lyn for the crime of Estafa.
Record shows that Nercy M. Demeterio,
Excel Mangubat, Ma. Lourdes Deutsch alias
Lyn, and the spouses Numeriano Rabadon
and Leonila Burlaos were charged
with Estafa.
Sometime in October, 1991, above-named
accused induced, offered and convinced
Milagros (Lala) G. Wilson to buy a portion of
beach property in Cebu for P250,000.00
knowing that said portion offered for sale
was under the coverage of CARP Law and
assuring upon the vendee that said
property is free from all liens,
encumbrances and the documents or
papers thereto were all in order, and for
reasons of their assurances, the offended
party decided to buy the same, making a
downpayment to the accused in the amount
of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR
THOUSAND PESOS (P164,000.00), and
when the victim finally learned of the
deception made by the accused she
demanded to return unto her the
downpayment, but the accused without
justifiable cause, refused and still refuse to
return the aforestated amount.
Demeterio and Mangubat were arraigned
and pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Deutsch and spouses Rabadon and Burlaos
were likewise arraigned pleaded not guilty.
On January 19, 1993, the prosecution filed
a motion to discharge Mangubat, Demeterio
and the spouses Rabadon and Burlaos, to
become state witnesses. The trial court
granted the said motion but only with
respect to the spouses Rabadon and
Burlaos. The Order was dated July 7,
1993.4cräläwvirtualibräry
Demeterio and Mangubat guilty of
conspiracy and convicted them of Estafa.
On Appeal, CA amended the judgment
whereby Ma. Lourdes Deutsch was
acquitted whose crime has not been proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
In GR 132396, WILSON alleges that the
acquittal of Deutsch was unfounded,
arbitrary, unjust, and constituted grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
She argues that Deutsch should not have
been acquitted since the evidence shows
that the latter was an active participant in
the conspiracy perpetrated to defraud her.
She claims that conspiracy was more than
sufficiently established by the following
circumstances:
(1) It was Deutsch who enticed and
convinced private complainant to buy a
beach lot in Cebu.
(2) It was Deutsch who made a telephone
call the next day from Cebu and who dealt
with the Rabadons regarding the beach lot.
(3) Deutsch made the deal appear too hard
to resist.
(4) Deutsch offered to advance the
reservation fee of P20,000 and the amount
of P4,500 for expenses and received
P24,500 from petitioner as reimbursement
thereof.
(5) Deutsch convinced private complainant
to go to Cebu City, then fetched her and her
son from the airport and gave them free
accommodations.
(6) Deutsch repeatedly assured petitioner
that she would personally undertake the
transfer of the property to complainants
name.
(7) Deutsch summoned the other accused
to her house and introduced them to
petitioner as her friends.
(8) Deutsch, with the other accused,
accompanied petitioner to meet the spouses
Rabadon and made repeated and firm
assurances that the subject property was
free from any liens and encumbrances.
(9) Deutsch convinced petitioner to pay an
additional P80,000 to complete the required
P100,000 downpayment for the property.
(10) Deutsch, with Demeterio and
Mangubat, gave petitioner the Deed of
Absolute Sale signed by the lot owners, the
spouses Rabadon.
And (11) Upon being informed of
petitioners knowledge that the sale had
defects, Deutsch referred to her co-accused
Demeterio and Mangubat as her partners in
the transaction.
Petitioner maintains that the above
enumerated circumstances showed
Deutsch was part of the conspiracy.
Acquitting her was tantamount to
discriminating against the other accused,
for in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all.
In GR 134553, Petitioners Demeterio and
Mangubat allege that they had no active
participation in the transaction between
Wilson and Deutsch. They deny that they
employed false pretenses and/or fraudulent
acts, nor did they pretend to possess
property.
They likewise point out that the real estate
mortgage and the subsequent adjudication
of the property to the Bantayan Rural
Bank, Inc., was duly registered with the
Register of Deeds; that there was sufficient
notice, not only to the buyer but to the
whole world, of the infirmities extant in the
said property; that they even accompanied
Wilson to Anapog, San Remigio, Cebu to
check the property, something they would
not have done if their intention was to
defraud and misrepresent; and that Wilson
could have easily checked on any defects in
the title of the said property. They posit that
under the principle of caveat emptor, Wilson
has had sufficient warning.
On their alleged promise that they would
personally take care of transferring the title
of the land to Wilsons name, they explain
that their failure to carry out said promise
was not meant to deceive. A promise to
perform something is not deceit and a
failure to comply with the promise does not
change its character.
Petitioners Demeterio and Mangubat also
deny they were involved in a conspiracy to
defraud Wilson.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the petitioner availed
of the appropriate remedy of Petition for
Review on certiorari;
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals
acted with grave abuse of discretion
when it acquitted Ma. Lourdes Deutsch.
RULING:
1. At the outset, it should be recalled that
petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 and the special civil action of certiorari
under Rule 65 are two separate and distinct
remedies. Under Rule 45, a petition brings
up for review errors of judgment while a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65
concerns errors of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
Grave abuse of discretion is not an
allowable ground under Rule 45.
However, a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 may be considered as one for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, where it is alleged that the
respondents have abused their discretion in
their questioned actions,as in this case.
Generally, it is the Office of the Solicitor
General who can bring actions on behalf of
the state in criminal proceedings, before the
Supreme Court and/or the Court of
Appeals. In People vs. Santiago, 174 SCRA
143 (1989), however, we said the action
must be filed in the name of the private
complainant and not of the People of the
Philippines. For the purpose of expeditious
but inexpensive disposition of the case, and
granting that Wilson has sufficient interest
as a person aggrieved to file the special civil
action of certiorari under Rule 65, we shall
consider the allegations in her petition,
pursuant to the underlying spirit of liberal
construction of the rules. Brushing
technicalities aside, however, even if we
treat this petition as one under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, the conclusion in our
view is the same: the petition is without
merit.
2. NO.
In acquitting Deutsch, the Court of
Appeals merely interpreted the evidence
presented before the trial court, as it
deemed fit. Note, however, that the
acquittal of Deutsch is based only on lack
of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
 A tribunal, board or officer is said to have
acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
exercised its power in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility, and it must be so patent
and gross as to amount to an erosion or a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined
or to act in contemplation of law.
The documentary evidence presented before
the trial court shows that Mangubat and
Demeterio prepared the receipt dated
September 24, 1991, acknowledging
payment of P100,000; the Deed of Sale; and
the receipt dated October 11, 1991,
acknowledging the payment of P160,000. In
all these documents, only the signatures of
the Rabadons, Mangubat and Demeterio
appear.
Deutsch had no signature in the document.
Faced with this evidence, it is clear why the
Court of Appeals chose to disregard the
self-serving and sometimes inconsistent
testimonies of Mangubat and Demeterio.
Further, there is no showing that the CA
was motivated by anything other than the
desire to arrive at the truth in accordance
with the evidence on record. Hence, we find
that no grave abuse of discretion could be
imputed on the part of the appellate court
in rendering its decision on November 17,
1997, which acquitted respondent Deutsch
of estafa for lack of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
Further, as pointed out by the OSG,
whatever error might have been committed
by the Court of Appeals in said decision, it
could only be an error of judgment and not
of jurisdiction. It could not affect the
intrinsic validity of its decision.
Consequently, the acquittal of Deutsch may
no longer be reviewed, for to do so would
place her in double jeopardy in violation of
the basic tenets of our fundamental law
and current jurisprudence. This, however,
is without prejudice to any appropriate civil
action that might be taken against her by
the aggrieved party.
G.R. No. 81476             July 26, 1991
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, petitioner,
vs.
TANODBAYAN and LOLITA G.
LEDESMA, respondents.
SARMIENTO,  J.:
The petition for certiorari assails the
Resolution of the Office of the Tanodbayan
in case of "Commission on Audit v. Lolita G.
Ledesma" which dismissed the complaint
filed by the Commission on Audit through
its Auditor I, Miss Helen G. Gaabucayan,
and in effect discharged Lolita G. Ledesma
from all liability.
FACTS:
In an audit on October 31, 1985 by Helen
D. Gaabucayan of the period from April 27,
1985 to October 31, 1985, transactions
involving receipts and disbursements of
Trust Liability Account under Depository
Account No. 345-8404963 were not
recorded in any cashbook by the Cashier
and not all were reported to the accounting
section from April 17, 1981 to October 31,
1985.
Verifications and cross checking of
documents and records yielded the
following alleged significant findings:
1. Incurrence of cash shortage
amounting to P413,859.35 as of
October 31, 1985 consisting of
P390.85 on unliquidated cash
advance for uniform allowance and
P413,468.50 representing
unrecorded cash
advances/disbursements under the
name of Mrs. Lolita Ledesma taken
from Trust Depository Account No.
345-8404963 covering the period
April 17, 1981 to October 31, 1985.
2. Some accountable forms acquired
since April 13, 1981 consisting of
2,020 pieces commercial checks
were not presented for inspections;
neither were recorded or reported in
the monthly report of accountability
of accountable forms by the Cashier.
3. The Cashier did not prepare and
maintain Bank Cashbook (General
Form No. 104) for all financial
transactions (receipts and
disbursements/withdrawals) under
the Trust Liability Checking
Depository Account No. 345-
8404963 since the start of its
operations;
4. The withdrawal and transfer of
funds were made by the Cashier
without supporting documents. The
transfer was made from the BTR-
Funded Depository Account No.
345-8400198 to Trust Depository
Account No. 345-8404963 under
check no. 287052 and 287053 dated
July 23, 1985 amounting to
P100,000.00 and P83,079.70,
respectively. This transaction was
likewise not recorded and reported
 in the cashbook and in the
accounting records of the agency;
5. Receipts of funds from the
UNICEF, WHO and the MOH Central
Office which were deposited in the
Trust Depository Account No. 345-
8404963 were not issued with the
corresponding official receipts by the
Cashier in the amount of
P1,430,481.65;
6. Some collections/receipts and
disbursements made out of this
Trust Liability Account No. 345-
8404963 in addition to those
mentioned in finding No. 1 were not
reported and submitted by the
Cashier to the accounting section
for recording in the agency's books
of accounts and for final submission
to the Commission on Audit;
7. Returned checks and bank
statements received by the Cashier
from the PNB on Trust Depository
Account No. 345-8404963 were held
in the custody of the cashier's
section and were not forwarded to
the accounting section for purposes
of bank reconciliation;
8. No bank reconciliation statements
were prepared by the previous
accountant under the finance
division for the Trust Liability
Depository Account No. 345-
8404963 since the start of its
operation;
9. The accountable officer did not
reconcile her cashbook transactions
and balance with the accounting
records;
10. The official receipts issued by
the Bukidnon General Hospital in
acknowledgment of fund transfer
from the MOH Regional Office did
not reflect the actual date when
payment was made.
Because of the above findings, a complaint
for Malversation of Public Funds2 was filed
against Ledesma.
The Tanodbayan dismissed the complaint
on the ground that the evidence could not
establish a  prima facie presumption that
respondent has put the alleged missing
amounts to her personal use.
Neither could she be said to have failed to
render accounts because accordingly what
she did not account for with the
government was the UNICEF Funds which
she had to liquidate directly with UNICEF
Manila.
Nor could she be held under Article 220 of
the Revised Penal Code because the
transfer of the BTR Funded [Depository
Account No. 345-8400198] amounting to
P183,079.70 to Trust Depository Account
[No. 345-8404963] does not appear illegal
since it was authorized or sanctioned by
her superior and there appears no specific
showing that the BTR funded depository
account is appropriated for any limited
purpose only and could not be applied to
other purpose of public service by the MOH
(Ministry of Health).
This is so notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 106 of the State Audit Code of the
Philippines, because in this law it is
required that the payment, disposition or
application must be illegal.
ISSUE:
Whether Tanodbayan committed grave
abuse of discretion on dismissing the
complaint against Lolita Ledesma.
RULING:
NO. It should be pointed out that the
Tanodbayan's role in preliminary
investigations is to determine the existence
of a prima facie charge against a certain
respondent.
In the present case, the respondent
Ledesma was able to account for all funds
received from the UNICEF including those
allegedly missing.
The general rule is that the resolutions of
the Tanodbayan can not be brought to
judicial review.
Pres. Decree No. 1630 provides that:
Sec. 19. Tanodbayan's Immunities.
(a) No proceeding, opinion or
expression of the Tanodbayan or
any member of his staff shall be
reviewable in any Court
The immunity is intended to boost the
Tanodbayan in carrying out its functions
without much delay and pressure, being a
constitutional body tasked with seeing to it
that public accountability of government
employees is properly exercised.
It is evident that the petitioner's arguments
are anchored on the Tanodbayan's proper
appreciation of the facts.1âwphi1  Dumaguete City.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts,
more so in the consideration of the
extraordinary writ of certiorari where
neither questions of fact nor even of law are
entertained but only questions of lack or
excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion.
Grave abuse of discretion means such
capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of positive duty
or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation
of law
G.R. No. L-62082 February 26, 1992
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. TEODORO N. FLORENDO,
Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations,
12th Regional Disctrict, Branch IV,
Dumaguete City, VIVIENNE B. VILORIA,
SOCORRO MISA, GERMELIN ESTORCO,
PABLO BENDOLO, REWEL CABUAL,
BONIFACIO VALEROSO, ET.
AL., respondents.
BIDIN, J.:
FACTS:
Plaintiffs are tenants of four (4) parcels of
land located at Mabinay, Negros Oriental,
whose previous owner Ricardo Valeroso,
mortgaged the same to the Philippine
National Bank (PNB).
In 1971, said parcels of land were bought
by spouses Agripino and Soledad Viloria
who assumed the mortgage with PNB.
In 1974, PNB requested the Provincial
Sheriff of Negros Oriental to foreclose the
mortgage on the aforesaid parcels of land
after the failure of the owners thereof to pay
certain amortization and the same was sold
at public auction to the defendant bank as
the highest bidder. Notwithstanding the fact
that said lands were already brought under
the Land Reform Program of the
government, the PNB caused the titles to
said parcels of land transferred in its name
to the prejudice of plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs Vivienne B. Viloria, filed a
complaint for "Declaration of Nullity of the
Foreclosure Proceedings in Violation of P.D.
Nos. 27 and 946" against the defendants
PNB, et al. in the Court of Agrarian
Relations, 12th Judicial District, Branch IV,
PNB answered the complaint with
counterclaim for damages.
Plaintiffs, in turn, filed their reply to the
counterclaim. Defendant PNB then moved
for leave of court to file third party
complaint dated October 20, 1981 against
the registered owners-mortgagors of the
subject parcels of land.
Plaintiffs Vivienne Viloria, et al. moved for
the amendment of their complaint to
implead the heirs of the deceased plaintiff-
Agripino Viloria which respondent Judge
admitted in an order dated February 26,
1982.
On May 28, 1982, private respondents
Vivienne Viloria, et al. moved to further
amend their amended complaint. Notable
amendment introduced in the First
Amended Complaint is the inclusion of
another parcel of land as subject matter
thereof.
Said property belongs to the spouses
Agripino and Soledad Viloria and mortgaged
also with PNB.
PNB opposed the admission of the aforesaid
private respondent's First Amended
Complaint on the grounds that there was
no proper notice of hearing as required by
the Uniform CAR Rules of procedure, the
impropriety of including TCT No. 42836 —
a residential land situated in Cebu City as
subject matter of the complaint, and the
failure of private respondents to attach a
copy of the real estate mortgage contract
upon which the action was based.
Respondent Judge Florendo granted private
respondents' Viloria, et al. motion and thus,
admitted the First Amended Complaint.
Petitioner PNB's motion for reconsideration
of the above order was denied by
respondent Judge Florendo in an order
dated June 28, 1981.
Hence, the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent Judge
exceeded his jurisdiction in admitting
the First Amended Complaint which
adds another parcel of land not within
the coverage of Operation Land Transfer
pursuant to P.D. 27.

RULING:
YES.
The order of the respondent Judge
admitting the First Amended Complaint
including therein said questioned Lot 787-
B-2-A which is a residential lot not falling
within the ambit of PD 27, hence, beyond
CAR's jurisdiction, was issued in excess of
jurisdiction.
Upon the abolition of the Court of Agrarian
Relations by BP 129 enacted on August 10,
1981 and fully implemented on February
14, 1983, jurisdiction over agrarian
disputes is now vested in the appropriate
Regional Trial Court pursuant to the
provisions of Sec. 19(7) of the said law.
The Court of Agrarian Relations (now RTC
sitting as an agrarian court) could only
entertain disputes over lands that are the
subject of agrarian cases. Corollarily, lands
that are not the subject of agrarian
disputes should not be brought before it as
an agrarian court. It has been the
legislative policy to confine to the CAR
exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian cases as
well as their incidents.
The following factors indisputably
established questioned land is beyond
CAR's jurisdiction:
First, private respondents Viloria, et al.
admission in their Comment dated
November 19, 1982 that Lot No. 787-B-2-A
is a residential lot located at Cebu City.
Second, the certification by the Agrarian
Reform Team No. 215 to the effect that
subject lot is not within the coverage of the
Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D.
27. Such ''official certification can be
considered as correct, if only because of the
presumption of regularity that is stamped
on it as an official document".
Indeed, amendments to pleadings are
generally favored and should be liberally
construed, however, where the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case (Lot 387-B-2-A being a residential lot
not covered by Operation Land Transfer
under PD 27), it is evident that the
amendment of the complaint could not be
allowed so as to confer jurisdiction upon
the court over said property.
The term excess of jurisdiction signifies that
the court, board or officer has jurisdiction
over a case but oversteps such jurisdiction
while acting thereon. Verily, the writ
of certiorari is granted "to keep an inferior
court within the bounds of its
jurisdiction . . ."
It is the proper remedy "where it clearly
appears that the trial court is proceeding in
excess or outside of its jurisdiction . . ."
Since the "office of the writ of certiorari has
been reduced to the correction of defects of
jurisdiction solely and cannot be legally
used for any other purpose", said remedy is
available in the instant case to keep the
trial court from proceeding in the case in
excess of its jurisdiction.
The private respondents Viloria, et al.'s
contention that the petition for certiorari is
premature since the order of the
respondent judge could have simply been
assigned as an error in the appeal by the
petitioner in case of adverse judgment is
not persuasive. Even when appeal is
available and is the proper remedy, this
court has allowed a writ of certiorari when
the orders of the lower court were issued
either in excess of or without jurisdiction