Title
Wong vs. Wong
Case
G.R. No. 237159
Decision Date
Sep 29, 2021
Petitioner filed Estafa case over dishonored checks; respondents acquitted due to lack of fraud. Civil liability deemed contractual, requiring separate action.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 237159)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 was filed by Alberto Wong against the Decision dated August 18, 2017, and the Resolution dated January 19, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 103933.
    • The petition challenges the CA’s affirmation of the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) dismissal of the criminal case for Estafa against respondents Spouses Benny H. Wong and Estelita Wong, and the archiving of the case against co-accused Patrick Law.
  • Factual Allegations and Prosecution’s Evidence
    • The criminal case arose from an information filed against the respondents for Estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
      • a. The allegation detailed that, between March 2001 and April 2002, the respondents conspired to defraud petitioner Alberto Wong by issuing postdated checks as payment for loans.
      • b. These checks – issued by Union Bank and Banco de Oro – were purportedly guaranteed as payment for loans extended by petitioner and totaled P37,500,000.
    • Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored due to “ACCOUNT CLOSED,” prompting petitioner to seek recovery for the alleged fraud.
    • During trial, the prosecution established the following sequence:
      • a. Introduction of petitioner to respondents by Roberto Collantes, in connection with the loan-financed business of Morning Star Travel & Tours, Inc.
      • b. Initial payments were made promptly, which bolstered petitioner’s trust, leading him to extend larger sums of money.
      • c. Ultimately, after receiving an accumulated large amount, respondents issued four postdated checks to cover the loan, which were later dishonored.
  • Defense and Procedural Developments
    • Spouses Wong pleaded not guilty; however, Patrick Law failed to appear at arraignment resulting in a warrant of arrest against him.
    • During the trial, after the prosecution rested its case, the Spouses Wong filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence, contesting:
      • a. The lack of evidence proving fraud or deceit.
      • b. The argument that the checks were issued to settle a pre-existing loan or obligation related to Morning Star’s corporate needs.
      • c. The lack of proof regarding who signed, drew, and issued the postdated checks.
    • The RTC ruled in favor of the defense by granting the Demurrer to Evidence on January 14, 2014, dismissing the case for lack of sufficient evidence of fraud.
    • Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the civil aspect of the case, which was denied on November 6, 2014, with the RTC holding that:
      • a. The loans were used for the corporate affairs of Morning Star, thus disconnecting the issue of personal criminal liability from that of corporate obligations.
      • b. There was no substantial evidence that the accused personally benefited from the loans.
  • Appellate Proceedings
    • The CA affirmed the RTC’s findings in its Decision dated August 18, 2017:
      • a. It agreed that the prosecution failed to prove fraudulent deceit which is necessary to constitute Estafa.
      • b. It considered that the postdated checks were merely guarantees for the payment of loans.
    • The CA further denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution dated January 19, 2018 for lack of merit.
    • Petitioner subsequently appealed on the ground that despite an acquittal on criminal liability, the issue of civil liability should be separately addressed.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not pronouncing on the civil liability of Spouses Wong in the criminal case.
    • The contention revolves around whether the absence of fraud as a basis for criminal liability automatically extinguishes any implied civil liability.
  • Whether the civil liability arising from the alleged transaction is of the nature of civil liability ex delicto or that of civil liability ex contractu.
    • If the civil obligation arises from a contract (ex contractu), it must be filed separately from the criminal action.
    • The petitioner argues that the civil liability, even in the absence of the fraud element, ought to persist based on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
    • Conversely, the defense asserts that the acquittal on the ground of no fraud signifies the nonexistence of an act or omission from which a recovery of civil liability ex delicto can be based.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.