Samson Ching vs.

Clarita Nicdao and Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 141181, April 27, 2007
Callejo, Sr., J.
 
Facts:
 
              Clarita Nicdao, owner of Vignette Superstore, contracted a loan from  Emma Nuguid and
Samson Ching in 1995. Payments were issued in the form of checks which was later denied because of
insufficiency of funds, thus in 1997 11 information for violation of BP 22, The Bouncing Checks Law, was
filed against Nicdao. The MCTC convicted Nicdao stating that the following elements are present in the
case of respondent Nicdao’s issuance of the checks: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check
to apply to account or for value; (2) the issuer, maker or drawer has knowledge that said checking
account has insufficient funds; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds.  And as such elements are explained in the violation of BP 22, the RTC also
affirmed the said decision
              On the other hand the Court of Appeals acquitted Nicdao after the factual findings showed that
Nicdao had already paid her debt in the total of Php5,780,000 to Nuguid. Also, Ching failed to adduce
evidence to prove the existence of a previous transaction between him and the respondent. In addition to
that with regards to the 20 million pesos check, the CA characterize the claim of Ching as incredible and
contrary to human experience since no one would deliver the said amount to respondent Nicdao without
any documentary proof thereof.
              Petitioner, Ching, contends that notwithstanding the acquittal of respondent, the SC has
jurisdiction and authority to resolve and rule on her civil liability and that said liability is in the amount of
Php 20,950,000. On the other hand, respondent Nicdao asserts that under Section 2(b), Rule 111 of the
Revised Rules of Court, which provides that “except in the cases provided for in Section 3 hereof, after
the criminal action has been commenced, the civil action which has been reserved cannot be instituted
until final judgment in the criminal action x x x”
 
Issues:
              Whether or not a civil case may be instituted against Clarita Nicdao after her acquittal
 
Held:
              The general rule as provided in Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court is that an acquittal does
not necessarily carry with it the extinguishment of the civil liability of the accused. Judgments of acquittal
are required to state whether the evidence of the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused or
merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if
the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. From the foregoing, petitioner
Ching correctly argued that he, as the offended party, may appeal the civil aspect of the criminal case
notwithstanding the respondent Nicdao’s acquittal. However, a painstaking review of the case leads to the
conclusion that respondent Nicdao’s acquittal likewise carried with it the extinction of the action to enforce
her civil liability. There is simply no basis to hold respondent Nicdao civilly liable to petitioner Ching. First,
the acquittal of respondent Nicdao is based on the finding that she did not commit the act penalized under
BP 22. Second, the CA did not adjudge her to be civilly liable to petitioner Ching. And third, while
petitioner Ching attempts to show that respondent Nicdao’s liability did not arise from or was not based
upon the criminal act of which she was acquitted but from her loan obligations to him, however, petitioner
Ching miserably failed to prove by preponderant evidence the existence of these unpaid loans.
 
              The petition is denied for lack of merit.