G.R. No. 179814 - Chiok vs. People

Petitioner Wilfred N. Chiok was accused in an Information of committing estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly receiving P9,563,900.00 in trust from Rufina Chua to buy shares of stocks and misappropriating the amount.
The prosecution was the People of the Philippines represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

Rufina Chua testified she invested with Chiok from 1989 and, in June 1995, delivered P7,100,000.00 by deposit to Chiok’s Far East Bank, Annapolis account on June 9, 1995 and P2,463,900.00 in cash later that date.
Chua relied on assurances from Chiok and produced a deposit slip dated June 9, 1995 as proof; there was no receipt for the cash delivery.
To allay Chua’s suspicions, Chiok allegedly gave her two interbank checks: Check No. 02030693 dated July 11, 1995 for P7,963,900.00 and Check No. 02030694 dated August 15, 1995 for P1,600,000.00, which were later dishonored for garnishment and insufficiency of funds.
Chiok later gave Chua checks from Yu Que Ngo — Metrobank Check No. 0261666961 dated August 15, 1995 for P2,000,000.00 and Metrobank Check No. 0261666062 dated October 15, 1995 for P6,000,000.00 — and offered settlement in kind which Chua refused.
Chua made an extrajudicial demand by letter dated October 25, 1995; Chiok replied by letter dated November 16, 1995 claiming the funds were investment in an unregistered partnership and had been invested with Yu Que Ngo.

Chiok denied enticement to invest in the stock market and claimed the funds were for an unregistered partnership and dollar transactions until 1995.
On cross-examination he admitted receiving “P7.9” million in June 1995 and “P1.6” million earlier and admitted issuing interbank checks totaling P9,563,900.00.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 165, Pasig, rendered a Decision dated December 3, 1998 convicting Chiok of estafa, sentencing him under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and ordering payment to Chua of P9,563,900.00 with legal interest from date of demand.
On February 1, 1999 the prosecution moved for cancellation of bail under Section 5, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure; the RTC in an Omnibus Order dated May 28, 1999 cancelled bail and issued an order of arrest.
The order of arrest was returned unserved on July 25, 1999 on the ground that Chiok could not be located.

Chiok filed a Notice of Appeal on June 18, 1999, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 23309; the appellate court initially dismissed the appeal on September 21, 1999 for abandonment after finding he had jumped bail.
Chiok filed a petition for certiorari in the CA (bail case) leading to a TRO on July 27, 1999 and a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining arrest on September 20, 1999.
The OSG and Chua sought review in the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court reversed the CA injunction in decisions that became final on December 6, 2006 and June 20, 2007.
The CA reinstated Chiok’s appeal on February 29, 2000 after learning the TRO and injunction preceded the appeal’s dismissal.

On July 19, 2007 the Court of Appeals (Special Division of Five) rendered a Decision reversing the RTC conviction, acquitting Chiok for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but ordering civil liability in the amount of P9,500,000.00.
The CA found prosecution testimony inconsistent and improbable, noted absence of documentary proof of prior stock dealings, and concluded acceptance of Yu Que Ngo’s checks ratified the application of funds so that misappropriatio...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether Rufina Chua has the legal personality to file and prosecute a petition assailing the CA’s criminal acquittal of Wilfred Chiok.

Whether the case presents an exception to the rule on the finality-of-acquittal and the doctrine of double jeopardy such that the CA acquittal may be reviewed.

Whether Wilfred Chiok is civilly liable to Rufina Chua...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest