G.R. No. 19857 - Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. vs. Public Utility Board

In November 1995, Mary Ann Manuel introduced Victoria B. Collado to Eduardo M. Dela Vega.
Eduardo, enticed by the promise of earning 7.225% interest per month, invested in Victoria’s stock business.
An initial cash investment of P100,000.00 was made by Eduardo.
Victoria assured that Mary Ann Manuel would monitor the investment and that it would be secured by a stock certificate.

Eduardo made additional investments by either personally delivering cash to Victoria or depositing funds into her bank accounts.
Despite the continued inflow of funds, Victoria failed to issue any stock certificate to Eduardo.
The absence of the stock certificate prompted Eduardo to demand the return of his investments.

Victoria issued checks dated October 7, 1998, amounting to P340,000.00 and November 3, 1998, amounting to P400,000.00 as a response to Eduardo’s demand.
Both checks were dishonored upon presentment, further aggravating the situation.

Eduardo charged Victoria with estafa involving unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
The alleged offense involved the misappropriation and conversion of funds (P5,000,000.00 and US$82,000.00) that Eduardo had provided for investment purposes.
The case was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under Criminal Case No. 99-2080.
On March 26, 2009, the RTC acquitted Victoria on the ground of reasonable doubt, stating that the evidence was insufficient to conclusively prove that she had received money in trust or on commission.

Dissatisfied with the RTC’s acquittal and its ruling that no preponderant evidence existed to establish civil liability, Eduardo elevated the civil aspect of the case.
The Civil Case was docketed with the Court of Appeals (CA) under CA-G.R. CV No. 94532.
On October 2, 2014, the CA ruled that Eduardo’s appeal to recover civil liability was proper despite the criminal acquittal.
The CA found Victoria liable to pay Eduardo the total amount of P2,905,000.00 based on documentary evidence (e.g., bank deposit slips) and testimonies that confirmed the business transaction and the funds deposited.

Victoria sought reconsideration of the CA’s decision but was denied.
She contended that the factual appreciation of witnesses by the RTC should not have been disturbed by the CA, and that the funds were intended for investment—with the inherent risks such ventures imply.
Eduardo, on the other hand, maintained that the CA’s findings were supported by preponderant evidence and that Victoria’s factual issues were within the ambit of the petition for review on certiorari.
These conflicting rulings between the RTC and CA became the central subject matter of the petition.

Whether this Court, on a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, may question the appreciation and weighing of evidence, which are primarily factual determinations.
Whether the conflicting findings between the RTC and the CA warrant the examination and review of evidence by this Court.

Whether the preponderant evidence supports the imposition of civil liability on Victoria despite her criminal acquittal based on reasonable doubt.
Whether an acquittal in criminal proceedings, where the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, necessarily absolves a party from civil liability, which is determined by a lesser standard of preponderance of evidence.

Whether the documentary and testimonial evidence (including bank deposit slips, testimonies, and extra-judicial admissions) is sufficient to establish that a business transaction occurred and that funds were received as an investment.
Whether Victoria’s acknowledgments, including her absence of a categorical denial regarding the funds, justify the imposition of civil liability.