GR 128927; (September, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128927 . September 14, 1999.
REMEDIOS NOTA SAPIERA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RAMON SUA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Remedios Nota Sapiera, a sari-sari store owner, purchased grocery items from Monrico Mart and paid with checks issued by Arturo de Guzman, which she indorsed at the back. The checks were dishonored because the drawer’s account was closed. Four charges of estafa were filed against petitioner. The trial court acquitted her of estafa due to lack of evidence proving conspiracy with de Guzman but did not rule on her civil liability. Arturo de Guzman was convicted for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in related cases and ordered to pay civil indemnity. Private respondent Ramon Sua appealed the civil aspect of petitioner’s acquittal. The Court of Appeals granted the appeal via mandamus and later held petitioner civilly liable for the value of the checks. Upon motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals adjusted the award, deducting an amount already collected from de Guzman, and ordered petitioner to pay the balance.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner civilly liable to private respondent after her acquittal by the trial court from the charges of estafa.
RULING
No. The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals’ decision, as amended, is affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil liability unless the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. The trial court’s acquittal was based on the prosecution’s failure to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt, not on a finding that the facts giving rise to civil liability did not exist. Petitioner admitted signing the checks, and the evidence showed she purchased goods, paid with the dishonored checks, and was informed of the dishonor. Thus, her civil liability, based on her indorsement of the checks, remains. The civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, and the acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not bar a civil action where only a preponderance of evidence is required. The computation of civil liability by the Court of Appeals is a factual matter binding on the Supreme Court.