Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Nissan-Gallery Ortigas Vs Felipe, GR 199067, Nov 11, 2013

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    232 views2 pages
    Purificacion Felipe was charged with issuing a worthless check but was acquitted of criminal liability. However, she can still be held civilly liable because the issuance of the check was proven, even if there was reasonable doubt about her criminal intent. For crimes like issuing worthless checks under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the civil case is automatically included with the criminal case, so acquittal of criminal liability does not prevent imposition of civil liability if the unlawful act was committed. While Purificacion's acquittal means the facts did not prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence showed she issued the check, so she remains civilly liable.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5. Nissan-Gallery Ortigas vs Felipe, GR 199067, Nov 11, 2013 (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Purificacion Felipe was charged with issuing a worthless check but was acquitted of criminal liability. However, she can still be held civilly liable because the issuance of the check was proven, even if there was reasonable doubt about her criminal intent. For crimes like issuing worthless checks under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the civil case is automatically included with the criminal case, so acquittal of criminal liability does not prevent imposition of civil liability if the unlawful act was committed. While Purificacion's acquittal means the facts did not prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence showed she issued the check, so she remains civilly liable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    232 views2 pages

    Nissan-Gallery Ortigas Vs Felipe, GR 199067, Nov 11, 2013

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    Purificacion Felipe was charged with issuing a worthless check but was acquitted of criminal liability. However, she can still be held civilly liable because the issuance of the check was proven, even if there was reasonable doubt about her criminal intent. For crimes like issuing worthless checks under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the civil case is automatically included with the criminal case, so acquittal of criminal liability does not prevent imposition of civil liability if the unlawful act was committed. While Purificacion's acquittal means the facts did not prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence showed she issued the check, so she remains civilly liable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Nissan Gallery-Ortigas vs.

    Felipe
    G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013

    Recit-Ready Case Summary:


    Felipe was charged with violation of BP 22 for issuing a worthless check. However, she was acquitted from her criminal charge. The
    case was elevated to the CA which then ruled that Felipe could not be held civilly liable because of her acquittal from her criminal
    charge. The decision of the RTC was reinstated. 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.

    General Rule of Law/Doctrine:


    The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its accompanying civil liability. The civil aspect of every criminal case is
    based on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. If the accused, however, is not found to be criminally liable,
    it does not necessarily mean that he will not likewise be held civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
    the extinction of the civil action. This rule more specifically applies when (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
    preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the
    accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted. The civil action based on the delict is
    extinguished if there is a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
    did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.

    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

    You might also like