G.R. No. 211564 November 20, 2017
BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA, Petitioner vs. SCREENEX, INC., represented by ALEXANDER G. YU, Respondent

FACTS

Petitioner Benjamin Evangelista obtained a loan from respondent Screenex, Inc. in 1991, receiving two checks totaling ₱1.5 million. As security, he issued two open-dated checks payable to Screenex. These checks were held by Philip Gotuaco, Sr. until his death in 2004. After demands for payment, the checks were deposited in 2005 but were dishonored for the reason “ACCOUNT CLOSED.” Evangelista was subsequently charged with two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22).
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) acquitted Evangelista of the criminal charges because the prosecution failed to prove the third element of B.P. 22—that the drawer knew of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance, due to insufficient proof of receipt of a demand letter. However, the MeTC held him civilly liable for the loan amount of ₱1.5 million plus interest, ruling that the creditor’s possession of the checks was evidence of non-payment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this civil liability.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the lower courts’ ruling that petitioner is civilly liable for the loan obligation despite his acquittal in the B.P. 22 cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct nature of criminal liability under B.P. 22 and the accompanying civil obligation arising from the underlying loan. An acquittal in a B.P. 22 case, especially one based on the failure to prove the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, does not extinguish the civil liability if such liability arises from a separate source of obligation. Here, the civil liability is rooted in the contract of loan, not in the criminal act of issuing a bouncing check.
The Court emphasized that the checks issued by Evangelista were evidence of the loan. His acquittal did not disprove the existence of the loan or his duty to pay it. The burden to prove payment of the loan rested upon him as an affirmative defense, which he failed to discharge. Furthermore, the defense of prescription was unavailing. The prescriptive period for an action upon a written contract is ten years. The loan’s maturity date was not established, and the cause of action for non-payment accrued only upon demand, which was made within the prescriptive period. Therefore, the civil obligation remained valid and enforceable.