NISSAN GALLERY Vs Felipe Case Digest

Ortigas vs.
Felipe
G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013
Digested by: Jade M. Estorninos
Subject Matter: Civil liability of an accused despite acquittal of a criminal charge
Facts of the Case: Nissan Gallery-Ortigas, a car dealer, filed a criminal complaint for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Purificacion Felipe, after which an
Information was filed before the MTC, for her issuance of a postdated check in the
amount of P1,020,000.00, which was subsequently dishonored upon presentment due
to STOP PAYMENT.
Purificacion issued the said check because her son, Frederick Felipe (Frederick),
attracted by a huge discount of P220,000.00, purchased a Nissan Terrano 4x4 sports
and utility vehicle (SUV) from Nissan. Despite non-payment, Frederick took possession
of the vehicle.4
After few demands, Frederick promised to pay Nissan, but again failed to pay. He asked
his mother, Purificacion, to issue the subject check as payment for his obligation.
Purificacion acceded to his request. Frederick then tendered her postdated check in the
amount of P1,020,000.00. The check, however, was dishonored upon presentment due
to STOP PAYMENT.
A demand letter was served upon Purificacion, through Frederick, who lived with her,
informing her of the dishonor of the check and gave her five (5) days from days from
receipt within which to replace it with cash or manager’s check. Despite receipt of the
demand letter, Purificacion refused to replace the check giving the reason that she was
not the one who purchased the vehicle.
Municipal Trial Court Ruling: The MTC acquitted Purificacion of the criminal charge,
but holding her civilly liable to Nissan.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Ruling: The RTC affirmed the MTC decision, ruling that
Purificacion was estopped from denying that she issued the check as a show check to
boost the credit standing of Frederick and that Nissan agreed not to deposit the same.
Further, the RTC considered Purificacion to be an accommodation party who was liable
on the instrument to a holder for value even though the holder at the time of taking the
instrument knew him or her to be merely an accommodation party.
Court of Appeals Ruling: In a Petition for Review, the CA exonerated Purificacion
from any civil liability by reason of her issuance of the subject check, stating that 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.
It added 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.1 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.
Issue: Whether or not Purificacion is civilly liable for the issuance of a worthless check
despite her acquittal from the criminal charge.
Supreme Court (SC) Ruling: The SC ruled in the affirmative. 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.
It can, therefore, be concluded that 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.
Purificacion was charged with violation of BP 22 for allegedly issuing a worthless

check. The essential elements of the offense of violation of BP 22 are the following:
(1) The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
(2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue there were
no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in
full upon its presentment; and
(3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
the dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
the drawee bank to stop payment.
Here, the first and third elements were duly proven in the trial. Purificacion, however,
was acquitted from criminal liability because of the failure of the prosecution to prove
the fact of notice of dishonor. Of the three (3) elements, the second element is the
hardest to prove as it involves a state of mind. Thus, Section 2 of BP 22 creates a
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds which, however, arises only after it
is proved that the issuer had received a written notice of dishonor and that within five
(5) days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make
arrangements for its payment.
Purificacion was acquitted because the element of notice of dishonor was not
sufficiently established. Nevertheless, the act or omission from which her civil liability
arose, which was the making or the issuing of the subject worthless check, clearly
existed. Her acquittal from the criminal charge of BP 22 was based on reasonable doubt
and it did not relieve her of the corresponding civil liability. The Court cannot agree
more when the MeTC ruled that: 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 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.

NISSAN GALLERY Vs Felipe Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NISSAN GALLERY Vs Felipe Case Digest

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

NISSAN GALLERY Vs Felipe Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ortigas vs.

Digested by: Jade M. Estorninos

Subject Matter: Civil liability of an accused despite acquittal of a criminal charge

It can, therefore, be concluded that if the judgment is conviction of the accused,

Purificacion was charged with violation of BP 22 for allegedly issuing a worthless

You might also like