Case Summary (G.R. No. 257980)
Antecedent Facts
In 1991, Evangelista secured a P1,500,000 loan from Screenex, Inc. via two checks (P1,000,000 and P500,000). As collateral he issued two open-dated checks, later held by Gotuaco, Sr. until his death in 2004. No formal maturity date was agreed. Family demands and a lawyer’s demand letter preceded the filing of criminal charges for BP 22 when the drawee banks refused payment of the December 22, 2004-dated checks due to “Account Closed.”
Criminal Trial (MeTC)
Elements proved: (1) Evangelista issued checks to apply on account or for value; (2) checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Element not proved: knowledge of insufficient funds or notice tolling five-day period. The court found no proof that Evangelista received the demand letter, thus no prima facie knowledge, and acquitted him of criminal liability. On the civil aspect, Evangelista admitted issuance and delivery but offered no proof of payment. Possession of the checks by the creditor was held sufficient to establish a debt of P1,500,000 plus 12% interest and costs.
Regional Trial Court Ruling
On appeal, Evangelista argued lack of civil liability and prescription. The RTC held the checks themselves evidenced indebtedness; affirmative defenses of payment and prescription were his burden to prove and were not substantiated. It ruled the prescriptive period unclear because loan terms were not shown, and even if the agreement was oral, it was not a written contract so Article 1144 did not apply. The RTC affirmed the MeTC decision in toto and denied reconsideration.
Court of Appeals Ruling
Evangelista raised new arguments: witness incompetence, material alteration (insertion of dates), and prescription. The CA held that:
- Prescription began upon dishonor and return of checks.
- Prescription was first raised at RTC appeal and not waived.
- Undated checks bore no alteration when dated.
- Evangelista never disputed the loan but failed to prove payment.
Accordingly, it denied the petition, affirmed liability for P1,500,000 plus interest, and denied reconsideration.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether petitioner’s civil liability for the dishonored checks was extinguished or barred by prescription, notwithstanding his acquittal of criminal charges under BP 22.
Applicable Law on Civil Liability and Prescription
- BP 22 criminal complaints include corresponding civil actions (Rule 111, Sec. 1[b]; Sup. Ct. Circular 57-97).
- A check is a negotiable instrument and may be discharged like a simple contract (NIL Sec. 119).
- Actions on written contracts or negotiable instruments prescribe in ten years from accrual (Civil Code Art. 1144).
- Check presentment for payment must occur within a reasonable time or drawer is discharged to the extent of loss (Civil Code Art. 1249; NIL Sec. 186).
- Undated instruments are deemed dated at issuance (NIL Sec. 17[c]); blanks must be filled within the authority given and a reasonable time (NIL Sec. 14).
- Unpleaded defenses barred except jurisdiction, prior action, res judicata, or statute of limitations, which courts may raise motu proprio (Rules of Court Rule 9, Sec. 1).
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- Civil liability is independent and contractual, yet included in the criminal case.
- The two security checks, undated when issued in 1991, acquired dates of December 22, 2004, long after a reasonable time, exceeding ten years from issuance
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 257980)
Antecedent Facts
- In 1991, Benjamin Evangelista obtained a loan from Screenex, Inc. evidenced by two checks: UCPB Check No. 275345 for ₱1,000,000 and China Banking Corporation Check No. BDO 8159110 for ₱500,000.
- Evangelista signed vouchers acknowledging receipt of both checks as proof of the loan.
- As security for repayment, he issued two open-dated checks, UCPB Nos. 616656 and 616657, payable to Screenex, Inc.
- These security checks and related documents remained in safekeeping with Philip Gotuaco, Sr., Screenex’s father-in-law, until his death on November 19, 2004.
- Prior to deposit, Evangelista received a personal demand from Gotuaco’s family and a demand letter from their lawyer.
Information and Criminal Charge
- On August 25, 2005, Evangelista was charged with two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (NSCDA) in Makati Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 61 (Criminal Case Nos. 343615-16).
- The Information alleged that on December 22, 2004, Evangelista willfully issued UCPB Checks Nos. 616656 (₱1,000,000) and 616657 (₱500,000) knowing he lacked sufficient funds or credit, the checks were dishonored for “ACCOUNT CLOSED,” and he failed to pay the face amount within five banking days after notice.
MeTC Ruling
- The trial court found the prosecution proved:
• Evangelista made, drew, and issued the checks for value.
• The checks were subsequently dishonored due to insufficiency of funds or credit. - It held the prosecution failed to prove the third element—Evangelista’s knowledge of insufficient funds—because no evidence showed the demand letter was actually received, making it impossible to fix the five-day payment period.
- Evangelista was acquitted criminally for lack of proof on all elements of BP 22.
- On the civil aspect, although Evangelista admitted issuing and delivering the checks and claimed full payment, he presented no proof of payment.
- The court invoked the presumption that possession of a debt instrument by the creditor indicates nonpayment, and ordered Evangelista to pay ₱1,500,000 plus 12% interest per annum from filing until fully paid, together with costs of suit.
RTC Ruling on Appeal
- Evangelista appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 147 (Criminal Cases 08-1723