Ching Vs Nicdao

CHING vs.
NICDAO
G.R. No. 141181
Facts:
Nicdao was charged eleven (11) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang
(BP) 22. The MTC found her guilty and the RTC affirmed the same on appeal.
When it reached the CA, it was reversed, and the accused was acquitted. Hence,
Ching now seeks relief from the Supreme Court.
Ching vigorously argues that notwithstanding respondent Nicdao’s acquittal by the CA, the
Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and authority to resolve and rule on her civil
liability. He anchors his contention on Rule 111, Sec 1B: The criminal action for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the
corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately
shall be allowed or recognized. Moreover, under the above-quoted provision, the
criminal action for violation of BP 22 necessarily includes the corresponding civil
action, which is the recovery of the amount of the dishonored check representing
the civil obligation of the drawer to the payee.
In her defense, Nicdao cited Sec 2 of Rule 111 which states:
“Except in the cases provided for in Section 3 hereof, after the criminal
action has been commenced, the civil action which has been reserved cannot
be instituted until final judgment in the criminal action.”
According to her, CA’s decision is equivalent to a finding that the facts upon which
her civil liability may arise do not exist. The instant petition, which seeks to
enforce her civil liability based on the eleven (11) checks, is thus allegedly already
barred by the final and executory decision acquitting her.
Issue:
1. Whether or not Ching may appeal the civil aspect of the case within the
reglementary period?
2. Whether or not Nicdao is civilly liable?
Held:
Ching is entitled to appeal the civil aspect of the case within the reglementary
period.
“Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Extinction of the
penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil
might arise did not exist. Petitioner Ching correctly argued that he, as the offended
party, may appeal the civil aspect of the case notwithstanding respondent Nicdao’s
acquittal by the CA.
The civil action was impliedly instituted with the criminal action since he did not
reserve his right to institute it separately nor did he institute the civil action prior to
the criminal action. If the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt but the court
renders judgment on the civil aspect of the criminal case, the prosecution cannot
appeal from the judgment of acquittal as it would place the accused in double
jeopardy. However, the aggrieved party, the offended party or the accused or both
may appeal from the judgment on the civil aspect of the case within the period
therefor.
The general rule is that civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where the
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt; the court expressly declares that the liability
of the accused is not criminal but only civil in nature; and where the civil liability
is not derived from or based on the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted.
A painstaking review of the case leads to the conclusion that respondent Nicdao’s
acquittal likewise carried with it the extinction of the action to enforce her civil liability.
There is simply no basis to hold respondent Nicdao civilly liable to petitioner
Ching.
CA’s acquittal of respondent Nicdao is not merely based on reasonable doubt. Rather, it is
based on the finding that she did not commit the act penalized under BP 22. In
particular, the CA found that the P20,000,000.00 check was a stolen check which
was never issued nor delivered by respondent Nicdao to petitioner Ching.
CA did not adjudge her to be civilly liable to petitioner Ching. In fact, the CA
explicitly stated that she had already fully paid her obligations. The finding relative
to the P20,000,000.00 check that it was a stolen check necessarily absolved
respondent Nicdao of any civil liability thereon as well. Under the circumstances
which have just been discussed lengthily, such acquittal carried with it the
extinction of her civil liability as well.

Ching Vs Nicdao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ching Vs Nicdao

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ching Vs Nicdao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHING vs.

In her defense, Nicdao cited Sec 2 of Rule 111 which states:

2. Whether or not Nicdao is civilly liable?

You might also like