In Samson Ching v. Clarita Nicdao, the Supreme Court clarified that an acquittal in a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, does not automatically extinguish the accused’s civil liability. However, in this particular case, the Court found that the acquittal of Clarita Nicdao effectively extinguished any action to enforce her civil liability because the court determined that the act that could have given rise to that liability simply did not exist.

Signed, Sealed, Stolen? How Civil Liability Hinges on Dishonored Checks

The case originated from eleven criminal complaints filed by Samson Ching against Clarita Nicdao for allegedly violating BP 22. Ching claimed Nicdao issued eleven checks amounting to P20,950,000.00 as security for loans. When presented for payment, the checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Nicdao, however, argued that one of the checks for P20,000,000.00 was stolen and the other ten checks were already paid. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) convicted Nicdao, which was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed the decision and acquitted Nicdao, leading Ching to appeal the civil aspect of the case to the Supreme Court.

The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether Nicdao could be held civilly liable for the amounts of the dishonored checks, despite her acquittal in the criminal case. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable, meaning that when a criminal action is instituted, the corresponding civil action for recovery of civil liability is generally impliedly instituted. An acquittal in a criminal case, however, does not always eliminate civil responsibility. The Court reiterated that, generally, there are exceptions, namely where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, where the court explicitly states that the liability is only civil, or where the civil liability is independent of the criminal act. However, if the final judgment in the criminal case finds that the act or omission from which civil liability may arise did not exist, the civil action based on the crime is extinguished.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court emphasized the CA’s findings that played a crucial role in its decision. First, the CA determined that the P20,000,000.00 check was stolen and never delivered by Nicdao to Ching, meaning that Ching never acquired any right to the check and that there could be no cause of action based on said stolen check. Second, it found that the loans secured by the other ten checks had already been fully paid. Based on these findings, the CA did not adjudge Nicdao civilly liable to Ching. In fact, it explicitly stated that she had already fully paid her obligations, underscoring that these determinations significantly impacted the civil aspect of the case.

Building on this analysis, the Supreme Court underscored that while checks can be evidence of indebtedness, the CA’s findings about these specific checks discredited them. Because of this determination, any civil liability had to be established independently, with preponderant evidence apart from the checks themselves. Preponderance of evidence means that the weight, credit, and value of evidence is greater on one side than the other and this standard was not met in this case.

On the one hand, Ching mainly relied on his own testimony, claiming Nicdao owed him money based on loan transactions. On the other hand, the defense presented a Planters Bank demand draft for P1,200,000.00 endorsed to Ching’s account, indicating payment. Further, cigarette wrappers with calculations of daily payments to Nuguid also supported Nicdao’s claim that payments had been made, therefore, between Ching and Nicdao, there was more evidence weighing in Nicdao’s favor.

The Supreme Court acknowledged Nicdao’s defense and emphasized Article 1956 of the Civil Code. This Article states that no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. While Nicdao testified her payments were for the loan’s interests, these amounts instead were properly credited to the principal loan amount because there was no written agreement for the payment of any interest.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Clarita Nicdao could be held civilly liable for dishonored checks despite being acquitted in the criminal case for violating BP 22.
What is BP 22?	BP 22, or the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the act of issuing checks without sufficient funds to cover the amount stated on the check.
Does an acquittal in a BP 22 case automatically extinguish civil liability?	No, an acquittal does not automatically extinguish civil liability. Civil liability may still exist if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or if the liability arises from a source other than the criminal act itself.
What is “preponderance of evidence”?	“Preponderance of evidence” means the greater weight of the evidence. The standard used to make determinations in civil cases means it is more likely than not that the facts are as one party alleges.
What did the Court of Appeals find regarding the P20,000,000 check?	The Court of Appeals found that the P20,000,000 check was stolen and never delivered to Samson Ching, meaning he had no cause of action founded on said check.
What evidence did Clarita Nicdao present to show payments?	Clarita Nicdao presented a Planters Bank demand draft for P1,200,000.00 that was endorsed to Samson Ching’s account, along with cigarette wrappers showing calculations of daily payments made to Emma Nuguid.
What is the significance of Article 1956 of the Civil Code in this case?	Article 1956 of the Civil Code states that no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. This was significant in crediting claimed payments to the principal.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court denied Samson Ching’s petition. They determined he had failed to establish that Clarita Nicdao still had unpaid loan obligations, emphasizing the greater weight of evidence weighed in her favor.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve an individual from civil obligations, highlighting the importance of examining the basis for the acquittal and assessing the evidence presented to support any claim for civil liability. While it’s important to have the burden of criminal liability lifted, it’s equally as important to prove complete satisfaction of obligations to extinguish the civil component as well.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Samson Ching v. Clarita Nicdao, G.R. No. 141181, April 27, 2007