THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 235682. January 22, 2018.]

DIWA T. TAYAO , petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES AND BEATRIZ A. WHITE, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution
dated January 22, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235682 (Diwa T. Tayao vs. Republic of the Philippines
and Beatriz A. White). — This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision dated May
26, 2017 1 and Resolution dated November 21, 2017 2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 146588. There, the CA affirmed in toto the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision, 3 holding Diwa Tayao (Tayao) liable on
the civil aspect of Criminal Case Nos. 364015-24 for Violation of Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.
Evidence for the prosecution showed that Tayao has been buying flour
from BRW Import Distribution (BRW) since 1997. As payment for the flour
delivered from January 2007 to May 2007, Tayao issued ten (10) checks with
a total value of P1,139,975.00. However, when the checks were presented
for payment, the same were dishonored by the drawee banks for the reason
"Drawn Against Insufficient Funds" or "Account Closed." A demand letter was
sent to Tayao, but she failed to make good the face value of the checks or to
pay her obligation to BRW.
As a result, ten (10) separate informations for violation of B.P. 22 were
filed before the Makati Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) by Beatriz White
(White), BRW's proprietor, against Tayao. When arraigned, she pleaded "not
guilty" to the crime charged. 4
When the prosecution rested its case, the defense sought for, and was
granted, leave to file a demurrer. In its demurrer, the defense prayed for the
dismissal of the case on the grounds that the prosecution's evidence failed to
overturn the presumption of Tayao's innocence and that the Constitution
prohibits imprisonment for non-payment of debt. On October 7, 2014, the
MeTC resolved to grant the same, albeit on a different ground. Specifically,
said court discussed that it was not established that a notice of dishonor was
actually received by Tayao. Being so, she cannot be convicted in the
absence of a clear showing that she actually knew of the checks' dishonor
and was given the opportunity to make arrangements for their payment. The
civil aspect of the case was then tried and on June 10, 2015, the MeTC held
Tayao liable for the face value of the dishonored checks. Dissatisfied, she
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 elevated the case before the RTC.
On May 18, 2016, the RTC rendered a decision adopting the MeTC's
findings. It ruled that there is no doubt that Tayao issued the checks as
payment for the flour purchased from BRW and that these checks bounced
for the reason "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds" or "Account Closed."
However, for lack of written notice of dishonor, and for failure of the
prosecution to prove all the elements of the crime of B.P. 22, the Demurrer
to Evidence was correctly granted, leaving the resolution of the civil aspect
of the case. As to this, the court ruled that the prosecution was able to prove
by preponderance of evidence that Tayao failed to pay the face value of the
checks she issued amounting to P1,139,975.00. The RTC ruled in this light:
WHEREFORE, viewed in the light of the foregoing
considerations, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse, modify
or set aside the decision of the court a quo dated June 10, 2015 as
the same is supported by law and evidence.
Accordingly, the decision of the court a quo, dated June 10,
2015 is hereby ordered AFFIRMED in TOTO. The appeal is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, Tayao filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied by
the RTC on June 24, 2016. An appeal before the CA, thus, ensued. TIADCc

The Ruling of the CA

On appeal, Tayao argued that she cannot be held liable for her
obligation because demand of the same was not proven. The prosecution,
according to her, should have presented the messenger of the demand
letters sent to her as a witness to prove that there was really a demand of
the obligation. The CA, however, ruled that although the messenger of the
demand letter was not presented, the demand letter itself may be used as
evidence to prove that demand was made on her so as to make her civilly
liable. The court made clear that while the demand letters sent to Tayao may
not be sufficient to prove notice as far as the criminal aspect of the case is
concerned, the same does not hold true with respect to the civil aspect. This
is so because unlike in criminal cases where the quantum of proof required
is proof beyond reasonable doubt, mere preponderance of evidence is
sufficient to prove notice in civil cases.
The CA also brushed aside Tayao's insistence that she should not be
held liable for the aggregate face value of the issued checks because she
allegedly made cash payments to BRW. In doing so, the court raised that
aside from her allegation of partial payment, she did not present evidence of
such. Bearing in mind that allegations are not proof, Tayao's failure to
present evidence is fatal to her cause because one who pleads payment has
the burden of proving it.
Tayao's next contention — that the prosecution of the civil aspect of
the case after she was acquitted on the criminal aspect contradicts the
principle against resort to a separate action to recover civil liability — failed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 to sway the court. Records show that no separate action to recover civil
liability was lodged against Tayao as the same was impliedly instituted with
the criminal aspect of the B.P. 22 case filed against her.
Finally, her contention of violation of the doctrine against double
jeopardy was similarly rendered needless. The CA pointed out that the right
against double jeopardy precludes only subsequent criminal proceedings. It
does not impede subsequent civil or administrative proceedings against a
person who has already been prosecuted for the same act or omission. The
fallo of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed dispositions
are AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the Petitioner.
SO ORDERED. 5

A motion for reconsideration was filed but the same was denied in a
Resolution dated November 21, 2017. 6
Tayao filed the present petition, 7 bringing forth similar issues raised
before the CA.

The Ruling of the Court

The Court resolves to deny the petition.

The case of Emilia Lim v. Mindanao Wines & Liquor Galleria 8 is very
much on point. In that case, Lim was charged of violation of B.P. 22 when the
checks she issued in favor of Mindanao Wines bounced for reasons "Account
Closed" and "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds." Lim filed a demurrer to
evidence, which was granted by the lower court on the ground that the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the fact of the checks' dishonor.
Nevertheless, the lower court found her civilly liable as it considered her
redemption of one of the checks during the pendency of the criminal case as
an acknowledgment of her obligation to Mindanao Wines.
When the case reached this Court, Lim insisted that since her acquittal
was based on insufficiency of evidence, it should then follow that the civil
aspect of the criminal cases filed against her be likewise dismissed. Hence,
there is no basis for her adjudged civil liability.
In ruling against her, the Court had this to say:
In any case, even if the Court treats the subject dismissal as
one based on insufficiency of evidence as Emilia [Lim] wants to put it,
the same is still tantamount to a dismissal based on reasonable
doubt. As may be recalled, the MTCC dismissed the criminal cases
because one essential element of BP 22 was missing, i.e., the fact of
the bank's dishonor. The evidence was insufficient to prove said
element of the crime as no proof of dishonor of the checks was
presented by the prosecution. This, however, only means that the
trial court cannot convict Emilia of the crime since the prosecution
failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the quantum of
evidence required in criminal cases. Conversely, the lack of such
proof of dishonor does not mean that Emilia has no existing
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 debt with Mindanao Wines, a civil aspect which is proven by
another quantum of evidence, a mere preponderance of
evidence. (Emphasis ours)
A person acquitted of a criminal charge 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 that 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. 9
Here, the lower court granted the demurrer to evidence filed by Tayao
on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove her receipt of the notice of
dishonor, the same being one of the elements of the crime of violation of
B.P. 22. 10 This only means that the facts proved do not constitute the illegal
act of issuing worthless checks, but does not mean that she is not indebted
to BRW. As correctly ruled by the CA, the demand letter was validly
appreciated and was sufficient to prove her monetary obligation to BRW.
Notably, she recognized her liability, only that she claimed to have partially
paid the same. This contention, however, cannot stand as it is a mere
allegation, and not proof. One who pleads payment has the burden of
proving it. Such burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather
than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. Indeed, once the existence of an
indebtedness is duly established by evidence, the burden of showing with
legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment rests on
the debtor. 11
Tayao's claim that double jeopardy had set in shall also fail because
the right against double jeopardy precludes only subsequent criminal
proceedings. It avoids punishment for the same offense to which a person
has already been convicted or acquitted. For double jeopardy to exist, the
following elements must be established: (1) the first jeopardy must have
attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as
that in the first; or the second offense is necessarily included in the first. 12
Therefore, if what is being tried is the civil aspect of a criminal case, the
person is not being charged with a second criminal offense identical to the
first. The principle against double jeopardy finds no application.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision
dated May 26, 2017 and Resolution dated November 21, 2017 of the Court
of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. (Martires, J., on leave)
SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate
Justices Pedro B. Corales Jhosep Y. Lopez.

2. Rollo , pp. 93-94.

3. Id. at 140-143.

4. Id. at 58.
5. Id. at 65.

6. Id. at 94-94.
7. Id. at 9-46.
8. G.R. No. 175851, July 4, 2012.

9. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Felipe , G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013.

10. That the accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with, drawee bank for the payment of the
check in full upon its presentment, as enunciated in King v. People , G.R. No.
125297, June 6, 2003.
11. Bognot v. RRI Lending Corporation, G.R. No. 180144, September 24, 2014.
12. Suero v. People , G.R. No. 156408, January 31, 2005.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com