Case Summary (G.R. No. 141181)
Trial Court Findings
The MCTC found that respondent borrowed a total of ₱20,950,000 from petitioner, secured by eleven signed but undated checks. It held that all elements of BP 22 were satisfied: issuance of checks for value, knowledge of insufficiency of funds, subsequent dishonor. Respondent was ordered to pay ₱20,950,000 plus 12% annual interest and to serve one year’s imprisonment per count. The RTC affirmed.
Court of Appeals Findings
On the eleven‐check case, the CA reversed and acquitted respondent on two grounds:
- The purported ₱20,000,000 check (No. 002524) was never delivered by respondent but was stolen in 1995. Being an incomplete, undelivered instrument filled out without authority, petitioner acquired no rights under it.
- The remaining ten checks secured loans already extinguished by full payment (₱1,200,000 via a Planters Bank demand draft and ₱5,780,000 in cash payments evidenced by notations on cigarette wrappers). No written stipulation for interest existed; daily payments were applied to principal.
Issues on Civil Liability
Petitioner contends that, notwithstanding respondent’s criminal acquittal, her civil liability to pay ₱20,950,000 remains and may be enforced in the same proceeding. He argues that BP 22 criminal complaints necessarily include civil actions for the amount of dishonored checks under Section 1, Rule 111, and that respondent’s obligations were not fully paid.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Civil action for bounced checks is impliedly filed with criminal action and Survivor after acquittal.
- Respondent transacted directly with him for ₱20,950,000, demonstrated by his testimony identifying the checks and their issuance.
- The Planters Bank draft was payment to petitioner, not to Nuguid; respondent’s silence to the joint demand letter implied admission.
- The CA ignored MCTC/RTC findings and erred in treating cash‐wrapper notations as principal payments.
- The CA should have consolidated the parallel Nuguid case.
Respondent’s Counter-Arguments
- CA’s acquittal expressly found that the act (issuance of checks for unpaid obligations) did not occur; civil liability is extinguished when the final judgment declares the delict non-existent.
- The ₱20,000,000 check was stolen; petitioner acquired no rights; it was neither delivered nor issued for value.
- The ten other checks secured loans fully discharged by the Planters Bank draft (admitted by petitioner) and daily payments on cigarette wrappers, uncontroverted by petitioner.
- No written stipulation for interest; under Civil Code Art. 1956, payments must reduce principal.
- Consolidation of CA cases is permissive, not mandatory.
Supreme Court Analysis
- Jurisdiction over Civil Aspect
– Under 1987 Constitution and revised Rules, the offended party may appeal the civil aspect after acquittal unless the final judgment adjudges the civil liability non-existent. - Effect of Acquittal on Civil Liability
– The CA’s acquittal was based not on reasonable doubt but on findings that respondent did not commit the delict: the ₱20,000,000 check was stolen and ten other checks secured obligations already paid. Under Rule 111, Sec. 2(b) and Civil Code Art. 29, civil liability is extinguished when a final criminal judgment finds the delict did not occur. - Burden and Quantum of Proof
– Petitioner failed to establish unpaid obligations by preponderant evidence. His testimony alone, unsupported by contemporaneous writings, is in
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 141181)
Case Title and Citation
- G.R. No. 141181, April 27, 2007, Third Division
- Samson Ching (petitioner) v. Clarita Nicdao and Hon. Court of Appeals (respondents)
- Decision penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Callejo, Sr.
Nature of the Petition
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court
- Limited to the civil aspect: enforcement of respondent’s obligation to pay P20,950,000.00 for dishonored checks
- Follows respondent’s acquittal for eleven counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (“The Bouncing Checks Law”) by the Court of Appeals
Factual Background
- October 6, 1997: Respondent Nicdao allegedly issued eleven (11) blank, pre-signed checks to Ching as security for loans; amounts ranged from ₱50,000.00 to ₱20,000,000.00
- All eleven checks drawn on Hermosa Savings Loan Bank, Inc., dishonored for “DAIF” (drawn against insufficient funds) upon presentment
- Loan transactions began October 1995; Nicdao allegedly to repay within one year but defaulted
- Simultaneous criminal complaints by Emma Nuguid (common-law spouse of Ching) against Nicdao for fourteen (14) other bounced checks totaling ₱1,150,000.00
Trial Court Proceedings
- Joint trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 9433–9443 (Ching’s complaints) and 9458–9471 (Nuguid’s complaints) before the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan
- Prosecution evidence:
- Ching identified all eleven checks, their signatures, and loan history
- Imelda Yandoc (bank teller) testified to dishonor stamps and account balances (₱300.00 in checking, ₱645.83 in savings; account closed October 8, 1997)
- Defense evidence:
- Nicdao denied dealings with Ching; asserted loans only from Nuguid (₱2,100,000.00), fully paid
- Presented Planters Bank demand draft for ₱1,200,000.00 (proof of payment)
- Cigarette wrappers with daily payment computations
- Salesladies (Melanie Tolentino, Jocelyn Nicdao) testified checks were pre-signed, blank, lost in 1995, filled in by Nuguid and Ching without authorization
- December 8, 1998: MCTC convicted Nicdao of eleven counts, ordered payment of ₱20,950,000.00 plus 12% annual interest and corresponding jail terms
- RTC Branch 5 affirmed MCTC decisions in separate