Title
Ching vs. Nicdao
Case
G.R. No. 141181
Decision Date
Apr 27, 2007
Chinese national Samson Ching accused Clarita Nicdao of issuing 11 dishonored checks totaling P20.95M. Despite Nicdao's acquittal, Ching sought civil liability. SC ruled no liability, citing stolen checks and lack of evidence.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Burden and Quantum of Proof
    – Petitioner failed to establish unpaid obligations by preponderant evidence. His testimony alone, unsupported by contemporaneous writings, is in

...continue reading

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