G.R. No.

L-60033 April 4, 1984

TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR., ANTONIO I. MARTIN, and TERESITA SANTOS, petitioners,

vs.
THE CITY FISCAL OF MANILA, HON. JOSE B. FLAMINIANO, ASST. CITY FISCAL
FELIZARDO N. LOTA and CLEMENT DAVID, respondents.

Nor is novation a mode of extinguishing criminal liability. As held by this Court,

novation may prevent the rise of criminal liability as long as it occurs prior to the
filing of the criminal information in court. In other words, novation does not
extinguish criminal liability but may only prevent its rise.

While it is true that novation does not extinguish criminal liability, it may however,
prevent the rise of criminal liability as long as it occurs prior to the filing of the
criminal information in court. Thus, in Gonzales vs. Serrano (25 SCRA 64, 69 [1968])
we held that:

As pointed out in People vs. Nery, novation prior to the filing of the
criminal information — as in the case at bar — may convert the
relation between the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor
relation, and place the complainant in estoppel to insist on the
original transaction or "cast doubt on the true nature" thereof.

Again, in the latest case of Ong vs. Court of Appeals (L-58476, 124 SCRA 578,
580-581 [1983]), this Court reiterated the ruling in People vs. Nery (10 SCRA 244
[1964] ), declaring that:

The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filling of the
criminal information in court by the state prosecutors because up to
that time the original trust relation may be converted by the parties
into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation, thereby placing the
complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust. But after the
justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and
instituted action in court, the offended party may no longer divest
the prosecution of its power to exact the criminal liability, as
distinguished from the civil. The crime being an offense against the
state, only the latter can renounce it (People vs. Gervacio, 54 Off.
Gaz. 2898; People vs. Velasco, 42 Phil. 76; U.S. vs. Montanes, 8 Phil.
620).

It may be observed in this regard that novation is not one of the

means recognized by the Penal Code whereby criminal liability can
be extinguished; hence, the role of novation may only be to either
prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true
nature of the original basic transaction, whether or not it was such
that its breach would not give rise to penal responsibility, as when
money loaned is made to appear as a deposit, or other similar
disguise is resorted to (cf. Abeto vs. People, 90 Phil. 581; U.S. vs.
Villareal, 27 Phil. 481).