G.R. No. 158495; October 21, 2004
ELIZABETH EUSEBIO-CALDERON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Elizabeth Eusebio-Calderon was charged with Estafa in three separate Informations for issuing various checks to her relatives—Amelia Casanova, Teresita Eusebio, and Manolito Eusebio—as security for loans. The checks, drawn against Allied Bank, Planters Bank, and PCIBank, were dishonored upon presentation for being drawn against a “Closed Account.” The Regional Trial Court acquitted her of the criminal charge of Estafa, finding no conclusive proof of deceit at the time of the loan transactions. However, the trial court held her civilly liable, ordering her to pay the face value of the checks: P130,900.00 to Casanova, P172,250.00 to T. Eusebio, and P60,000.00 to M. Eusebio.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the acquittal but modified the civil liability. It ruled that the civil obligation should be based on the actual loans received, not the face value of the checks which included unconscionable interest. The appellate court determined the principal amounts borrowed were P100,000.00 from Casanova, P157,500.00 from T. Eusebio, and P50,000.00 from M. Eusebio, and imposed 12% annual interest from the date of extrajudicial demand.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly computed the petitioner’s civil liability for the loans, including the imposition of interest.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification regarding the interest rate. The Court upheld the finding that the petitioner’s civil liability arises from her contractual obligation to repay the loans, which is separate from the criminal charge. The checks, though dishonored, constituted evidence of indebtedness.
The legal logic is anchored on Article 2209 of the Civil Code. The Court agreed with the appellate court that the obligation should be limited to the actual sums loaned, as the checks’ inflated face values represented excessive and unwritten interest stipulations. Since there was no written agreement on interest, no stipulated interest could be imposed. Consequently, only legal interest is due. The Court ruled that a 12% per annum interest is proper, computed from the date of extrajudicial demand (December 20, 1994) until the obligation’s satisfaction, as this period constitutes a forbearance of money. The award of interest itself does not earn additional interest, as there was no stipulated rate. Therefore, petitioner is ordered to pay the determined principal amounts with 12% annual interest from December 20, 1994.