Title: Hun Hyung Park v.

Eung Won Choi

Citation: 515 scra 502; 2007
Topic: Weight and sufficiency of evidence; Civil Cases

E was charged with violation for BP Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). During pre-trial,
he pleaded not guilty to the offense. The prosecution then presented it’s evidence.
After the prosecution rested it’s case, E filed a demurrer to evidence on the ground
that the prosecution failed to prove that he received the notice of dishonor, hence,
the presumption of the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise.
The court granted the demurrer and dismissed the case. H, petitioner, appealed the
civil aspect of the criminal case on the ground that the dismissal of the latter should
not include the civil liability.

Is H’s contention correct?

Answer: Yes.

Sec.1 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that in civil cases, the party having
the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.

Futher, our jurisprudence likewise provides that there is a disparity of evidentiary

value between the quanta of evidence in civil and criminal cases. For if the evidence
so far presented in a case is sufficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt,
then the same evidence is likewise sufficient to establish civil liability by mere
preponderance of evidence. On the other hand, if the evidence so far presented is
insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not follow that the same
evidence is insufficient to establish a preponderance of evidence.

In the case at bar, the dismissal of the criminal case filed against E does not
necessarily follow the dismissal of the civil liability arising from the crime since
different quantum of evidence is required in either cases. Hence, E may still be made
civilly liable.