Title
Diong Bi Chu vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-49588
Decision Date
Dec 21, 1990
Petitioners acquitted in criminal estafa case; civil action for damages under Article 33 allowed independently, despite acquittal, based on fraud allegations.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49588)

Background of the Case

  • Private respondents Jaime Navoa and Milagros de Leos filed a complaint against petitioners Diong Bi Chu (alias Patrick Chang) and Chang Ka Hee for estafa, alleging fraudulent acts that induced them to mortgage a parcel of land.
  • The complaint claimed that the petitioners misappropriated the proceeds from the mortgage, resulting in damages amounting to P670,000.00.
  • After the prosecution presented its evidence, a demurrer to evidence was filed by Chang Ka Hee, leading to the dismissal of the charges against him due to lack of involvement in the transaction.

Judgment of Military Commission No. 3

  • On August 3, 1977, Military Commission No. 3 acquitted Diong Bi Chu, determining that the transaction was a joint venture and that he acted in good faith without deceit.
  • The Commission noted that the risks associated with the joint venture, including the prohibition of importing Virginia leaf tobacco, were unforeseen and not attributable to any wrongdoing by Diong Bi Chu.

Civil Action Filed by Private Respondents

  • Following the criminal case, private respondents initiated a civil action for damages against the petitioners and Lu Liong Corporation on March 31, 1978, citing guaranty and fraud.
  • Petitioners sought to dismiss the civil action, arguing it was barred by the prior judgment of acquittal and the failure of private respondents to reserve their right to file a separate civil action.

Court's Denial of Motion to Dismiss

  • The Court of First Instance of Rizal denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss on May 30, 1978, and subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied.
  • Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the lower court's orders.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

  • On October 16, 1978, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, asserting that the civil action for damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code is independent of the criminal case.
  • The appellate court concluded that the acquittal in the criminal case did not bar the civil action for damages, emphasizing the distinct nature of civil and criminal liabilities.

Legal Principles on Civil Actions for Damages

  • Article 33 of the Civil Code allows for a civil action for damages based on fraud, which is separate from any criminal proceedings.
  • The standard of proof required in civil actions is a preponderance of evidence, contrasting with the higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
  • An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the possibility of civil liability, as one can be civilly liable without being criminally liable.

Reservation of Right to File Civil Action

  • The law does not require a reservation of the right to file a civil action, as this is inherently provided for in the Civil Code.
  • Previous procedural requirements for such reservations have been deemed ineffective and have been removed from ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.