Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nissan-Gallery Ortigas Vs Felipe, GR 199067, Nov 11, 2013
Nissan-Gallery Ortigas Vs Felipe, GR 199067, Nov 11, 2013
Felipe
G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013
FACTS:
Purificacion Felipe was charged with the violation of BP22. She issued the said check amounting to P1,020,000 because her son,
Frederick, defaulted with his payment when he bought a Nissan Terrano 4x4 from herein petitioner despite several demands. After trial,
the MeTC rendered its judgment acquitting Purificacion of the charge but holding her civilly liable to Nissan. She appealed to RTC
where the court denied the petition and the MR.
The CA, before whom the case was elevated via a petition for review, granted the petition on May 20, 2009. In so deciding, the CA
reasoned out that there was no privity of contract between Nissan and Purificacion. No civil liability could be adjudged against her
because of her acquittal from the criminal charge. It was Frederick who was civilly liable to Nissan.
The CA ruled that Purificacion could not be an accommodation party either because she only came in after Frederick failed to pay the
purchase price, or six (6) months after the execution of the contract between Nissan and Frederick. Her liability was limited to her act of
issuing a worthless check, but by her acquittal in the criminal charge, there was no more basis for her to be held civilly liable to Nissan.
Purificacion’s act of issuing the subject check did not, by itself, assume the civil obligation of Frederick to Nissan or automatically made
her a party to the contract. Nissan filed MR which was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Purificacion is civilly liable for the issuance of a worthless check despite her acquittal from the criminal charge.
HELD:
YES. Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that:
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery
of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action (unless
the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action).
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, with respect to criminal actions for violation of BP 22, it is explicitly clear that the corresponding
civil action is deemed included and that a reservation to file such separately is not allowed.
In cases like violation of BP 22, a special law, the intent in issuing a check is immaterial. The law has made the mere act of issuing a
bad check malum prohibitum, an act prescribed by the legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare.
Considering the rule in mala prohibita cases, the only inquiry is whether the law has been breached. The lower courts were unanimous
in finding that, indeed, Purificacion issued the bouncing check. Thus, regardless of her intent, she remains civilly liable because the act
or omission, the making and issuing of the subject check, from which her civil liability arises, evidently exists.
If the judgment is conviction of the accused, then the necessary penalties and civil liabilities arising from the offense or crime shall be
imposed. On the contrary, if the judgment is of acquittal, then the imposition of the civil liability will depend on whether or not the act or
omission from which it might arise exists.
A person acquitted of a criminal charge, however, is not necessarily civilly free because the quantum of proof required in criminal
prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) is greater than that required for civil liability (mere preponderance of evidence). In order to
be completely free from civil liability, a person’s acquittal must be based on the fact he did not commit the offense. If the acquittal is
1
Criminal Procedure- Mangkit
based merely on reasonable doubt, the accused may still be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit the act
complained of. It may only be that the facts proved did not constitute the offense charged.
2
Criminal Procedure- Mangkit