CRIMPRO: Rule 111, Sec.

1
BERNARDO v. PEOPLE [Institution of Criminal and Civil
36 Actions]
G.R. No. 182210 5 October 2015 Brion Frances Sayson
Petitioners: Respondents:
Paz T. Bernardo, substituted by heirs, Mapalad G. People of the Philippines
Bernardo, Emilie B. Ko, Marilou B. Valez, Edwin T.
Bernardo, Gervy B. Santos
Recit Ready Summary

Paz Bernardo obtained a loan from Carmencita Bumanglag, secured by a promissory note and a TCT.
However, she needed the TCT before the loan was due and replaced it with five checks. The checks
bounced and Bumanglag filed a criminal complaint for five counts of violating of BP 22. The RTC found
her guilty and this was affirmed by the CA, which ordered her to pay the civil indemnity equal to the
amount she owed Bumanglag, plus interest, in addition to a fine. Pending the petition with the SC,
Bernardo passed away and the Court required the substitution of her heirs. The heirs contend that
Bernardo’s death extinguished her civil liability and if it did not, the claim should be settled in a separate
civil case.

The Court said that Bernardo’s death did not extinguish her civil liability. While civil liability may arise from
the offense charged, the same act or omission may give rise to independent civil liabilities based on other
sources of obligation. Thus, it is entirely possible for one to be free from civil liability from violation of a
penal law and still be liable based on contract or by other laws. There is also no need for a separate civil
case. While the general rule is that independent civil liabilities survive death and an action for recovery
may be pursued by a separate civil action, in cases of BP 22 violations, the criminal action is deemed to
include the corresponding civil action. Only a single suit is filed and tried. The civil liabilities arising from
the issuance of a worthless check are deemed instituted in a case for violation of BP 22 and Bernardo’s
death did not automatically extinguish the action.

Because Bernardo was not able to prove that she had paid Bumanglag, the Court affirmed the CA
decision, ordering Bernardo’s heirs to pay the amount of the debt, with interest, but the fine was deleted.

Facts

1. Bernardo obtained a loan (PHP 460,000, payable on or before 30 November 1991) from Carmencita
C. Bumanglag in June 1991.
a. Promissory note executed by Bernardo and her husband
i. Solidary liability
ii. Interest at 12% per annum payable upon default
b. Additional security: owner’s duplicate copy of a TCT
2. Before the loan’s maturity, Bernardo took back the title from Bumanglag to use as a collateral in
another transaction. In exchange, she issued five Far East Bank and Trust Company checks to
cover the loan’s aggregate amount.
3. The checks were dishonored when they were deposited on September 1992. The demand/notice of
the dishonor of the checks went unheeded and Bumanglag filed a criminal complaint with the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Makati for 5 counts of violation of BP 22.

Procedural History

1. Complaint with office of the city prosecutor filed by Bumanglag; probable cause found to indict
Bernardo, who entered a not guilty plea on arraignment. Prosecution rested its case on 21
September 1994 and Bernardo took the stand almost two years later, on 9 May 1996 for her defense
2. RTC: RTC found her guilty. After Bernardo’s cross examination, hearing reset for redirect
examination but because Bernardo’s counsel failed to appear and because of the many previous
postponements, RTC considered her right to present additional evidence waived. Bernardo moved

1
 for reconsideration, but RTC denied and gave her 10 days to submit her formal offer of evidence.
When she did not, RTC declared that she had waived her right to submit her formal offer of
evidence.
a. She failed to substantiate claim of payment
b. Issuance of the worthless check is what BP 22 punishes
c. Penalty: 1 year imprisonment for each count, indemnity to Bumanglag of PHP 460,000
(12% interest and 5% penalty charges from 1 December 1991 until full payment)
3. CA: CA affirmed conviction, but deleted imprisonment and imposed a PHP 460,000 fine and
retained the civil indemnity
a. She failed to adduce sufficient evidence of payment
b. 90-day period is not an element of the crime
c. She was not denied due process (she had sufficient opportunity to present defense, but
they postponed at least 9 times and failed to appear 4 times)
4. SC: Bernardo’s counsel informed the Court of Bernardo’s death. In a Resolution, SC required heirs
to appear as substitutes for Bernardo for purposes of the civil liability. Her heirs moved to reconsider,
arguing that any civil liability should be settled in a separate civil case. SC denied this motion and
explained that Bernardo’s civil liability survived her death as it is based on contract.

Point/s of Contention

Bernardo
- During trial:
o She could not be held liable for the violation of BP 22 because the checks were
presented beyond the 90-day period provided by law.
o She did not receive notice of dishonor (essential to prove the material element of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds)
o Checks were never meant to be presented (she always paid her loans in cash, and she
already paid PHP 717,000)
o Although Bumanglag returned the TCT, Bumanglag never issued receipts and did not
return the checks
- Before SC:
o She was denied full opportunity to present her defense and was deprived of the chance
to prove her innocence of the crime charged
o Prosecution failed to prove knowledge of insufficiency of funds
o No violation of BP 22 because checks were presented beyond mandatory 90-day period
o Checks were issued without consideration because she had already paid the loan
- Heirs
o Bernardo’s death extinguished her civil liability
o If there is still civil liability, it should be settled in a separate civil case

People
- Bernardo was given the opportunity to present defense evidence
- 90-day period is not an element of the offense (Wong v. CA) but simply one of the conditions to
establish a prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds
- Bernardo1 failed to substantiate her claim that she had settled the obligation
- BP 22 penalizes the act of making and issuing a worthless check not the nonpayment of the
obligation
Issues Ruling
1. Whether or not Bernardo’s civil liability may be enforced despite her death in the 1. Yes
same case
2. Whether or not Bernardo was denied due process 2. No
3. Whether or not Bernardo should be civilly liable 3. Yes

1The case says “Bumanglag” but I think they meant Bernardo because she’s the one with the
assertion that she had settled the obligation

2
Rationale
1. Bernardo’s civil liability may be enforced despite her death in the same case

- Civil liability from other sources

o If the conduct constitutes a felony, accused may be held civilly liable under RPC Art. 100
o Not required that the accused be convicted to be entitled to civil liability based on delict
 As long as the facts constituting the offense charged are established by
preponderance of evidence, civil liability may be awarded
o Deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended
 Waives the civil action
 Reserves the right to institute it separately
 Institutes the civil action
o Same act may give rise to independent civil liabilities based on other sources of
obligation
 Thus, entirely possible for one to be free from civil liability from violation of a
penal law and still be liable based on contract or other laws
 Civil actions may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings,
regardless of the result of the criminal action (but offended party cannot
recover twice)
- BP 22 special rule
o GENERALLY: Independent civil liabilities survive death and an action for recovery
may be generally pursued by filing a separate civil action, subject to Section 1,
Rule 111
o BUT BP 22 criminal action deemed to include civil action
 Rule enacted to help declog court dockets
 Death did not automatically extinguish the action
 Independent civil liability based on contract, deemed instituted in the criminal
action may still be enforced against her estate

2. Bernardo was not denied due process

- RTC took all steps to safeguard her rights but they just failed to appear repeatedly
- Considering the right to present evidence as waived followed as a necessary and unavoidable
consequence

3. Bernardo civilly liable because she failed to adduce sufficient evidence of payment

- One who pleads payment carries burden of proving it

- Existence of obligation sufficiently established through promissory note and checks, and
Bernardo confirmed the issuance of the checks and promissory note
- If there had been payment, she should have redeemed or taken back the checks and the
promissory note, but they remained with Bumanglag
- Weight of evidence on Bumanglag’s position that Bernardo has not yet settled her obligation

Disposition

CA decision is affirmed with modification – Bernardo’s heirs ordered to pay PHP 460,000 with interest at
12% per annum from the time of the institution of criminal charges
- Total amount adjudged to earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the balance and interest
due, from finality of this Decision until paid
- No more fine of Php 460,000