DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. v Hon.
Velez
G.R. No. 129282
November 29, 2001
Independent Civil Action
FACTS:
A case for estafa was filed against Carmen Mandawe for alleged failure to
account to priv respondent Villegas the amount of P608,532.46. Villegas
entrusted this amount to Carmen Mandawe, an employee of petitioner
DMPI-ECCI, for deposit with the teller of petitioner.
Subsequently, Villegas filed with a complaint against Carmen Mandawe and
petitioner DMPI-ECCI for a sum of money and damages with preliminary
attachment arising out of the same transaction. In time, petitioner sought
the dismissal of the civil case on the following grounds: (1) that there is a
pending criminal case in RTC Branch 37, arising from the same facts, and (2)
that the complaint failed to contain a certification against forum shopping.
The trial court issued an order dismissing the civil case but after an MR by
Villegas, the case was reinstated.
ISSUE:
(1) whether the plaintiffs failure to attach a certification against forum
shopping in the complaint is a ground to dismiss the case? (NOT IMPT)
(2) whether the civil case could proceed independently of the criminal case
for estafa without having reserved the filing of the civil action?
HELD AND RATIO:
(1) NO. (NOT IMPT) Respondent Villegas failure to attach a certificate of non-
forum shopping in her complaint did not violate Circular No. 28-91, because
at the time of filing, the requirement applied only to petitions filed with the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Likewise, Administrative Circular
No. 04-94 is inapplicable for the reason that the complaint was filed on
March 29, 1994, three days before April 1, 1994, the date of effectivity of the
circular.
(2) YES IT COULD. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable. This is the law governing the recovery of civil liability arising from the
commission of an offense. Civil liability includes restitution, reparation for
damage caused, and indemnification of consequential damages.
The offended party may prove the civil liability of an accused arising from the
commission of the offense in the criminal case since the civil action is either
deemed instituted with the criminal action or is separately instituted.
However, with respect to civil actions for recovery of civil liability under
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or
omission, the rule has been changed.
Under the present rule, only the civil liability arising from the offense
charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended
party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
There is no more need for a reservation of the right to file the independent
civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. The reservation and waiver referred to in the Rules of Court refer
only to the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the
offense charged. This does not include recovery of civil liability under Articles
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same
act or omission which may be prosecuted separately even without a
reservation. (See Rule 111, Section 3)
The changes in the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure pertaining to
independent civil actions which became effective on December 1, 2000 are
applicable to this case. Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to
actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. There are no
vested rights in the rules of procedure.
Thus, the Civil Case, an independent civil action for damages on account of
the fraud commited against respondent Villegas under Article 33 of the Civil
Code, may proceed independently even if there was no reservation as to its
filing.
HUN HYUNG PARK v. EUNG WON CHOI
526 SCRA 103 (2007), SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)
If the evidence presented is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the guilt of the accused, it does not follow that the same is insufficient to
prove his civil liability.
FACTS: Eung Won Choi (Choi) was charged for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati for issuing a postdated check in the
amount of P1,875,000. The same was dishonored for having been drawn
against insufficient funds. Choi filed a demurer to evidence after the
prosecution rested its case. The Makati Metropolitan Trial Court granted the
Demurrer and dismissed the case.
Hun Hyung Park (Park) appealed the civil aspect of the case to the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, contending that the dismissal of the criminal case
should not include its civil aspect. RTC held that while the evidence
presented was insufficient to prove respondent‘s criminal liability, it did not
altogether extinguish his civil liability. Upon a motion for reconsideration,
however, the RTC set aside its decision and ordered the remand of the case
to the MeTC for further proceedings, so that the defendant may adduce
evidence on the civil aspect of the case.
ISSUES: Whether or not the remand of the case to the MeTC is proper
HELD: When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the
whole case is submitted for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the
prosecution as the accused is deemed to have waived the right to present
evidence. At that juncture, the court is called upon to decide the case
including its civil aspect, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a
separate civil action has been waived or reserved.
In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may
adduce countervailing evidence if the court denies the demurrer. Such denial
bears no distinction as to the two aspects of the case because there is a
disparity of evidentiary value between the quanta of evidence in such
aspects of the case. In other words, a court may not deny the demurrer as to
the criminal aspect and at the same time grant the demurrer as to the civil
aspect, for if the evidence so far presented is notinsufficient to prove the
crime beyond reasonable doubt, then the same evidence is likewise not
insufficient 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. For if the court grants
the demurrer, proceedings on the civil aspect of the case generally proceeds.
The only recognized instance when an acquittal on demurrer carries with it
the dismissal of the civil aspect is when there is a finding that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Absent such
determination, trial as to the civil aspect of the case must perforce continue.
In the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case
without any finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability may
arise did not exist. Choi did not assail the RTC order of remand. He thereby
recognized that there is basis for a remand. Indicatively, Choi stands by his
defense that he merely borrowed P1,500,000 with the remainder
representing the interest, and that he already made a partial payment of
P1,590,000. Park counters, however, that the payments made by Choi
pertained to other transactions. Given these conflicting claims which are
factual, a remand of the case would afford the fullest opportunity for the
parties to ventilate, and for the trial court to resolve the same.