G.R. No. 141181; April 27, 2007
Samson Ching, Petitioner, vs. Clarita Nicdao and Hon. Court of Appeals, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Samson Ching filed eleven criminal complaints for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) against respondent Clarita Nicdao. The checks, with an aggregate amount of ₱20,950,000.00, were allegedly issued by Nicdao to Ching as security for loans. The checks were signed but left undated; Ching later filled in the date October 6, 1997, and presented them for payment. They were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF). After trial, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court convicted Nicdao. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the conviction.
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed and acquitted Nicdao. The CA found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance. The checks were issued as security or guarantees for future loans, not for value or account at the time of their signing. The CA ruled that the element of making or drawing and issuing a check under BP 22 requires the check to be issued as a means of payment. Since the checks were delivered as mere securities for contingent obligations, their issuance did not fall within the purview of the law.

ISSUE

Whether the acquittal of respondent Clarita Nicdao of the criminal charges for violation of BP 22 extinguishes her civil liability to petitioner Samson Ching for the value of the dishonored checks.

RULING

No, the acquittal does not automatically extinguish the civil liability. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s acquittal but held that Nicdao may still be held civilly liable. The Court explained that civil liability arising from a crime is not extinguished by acquittal unless the acquittal includes a declaration that the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Here, the CA’s acquittal was based on the failure to prove the criminal intent required under BP 22, specifically the knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance. The CA did not find that the checks were not issued or that no obligation existed.
The Court clarified that the civil action for the recovery of the debt evidenced by the checks is separate and distinct from the criminal prosecution. The origin of Nicdao’s civil liability is the loan obligation or contract of loan for which the checks were issued as security. This civil obligation persists independently of the criminal case. Consequently, the acquittal on criminal grounds does not bar a separate civil action for collection of a sum of money based on the underlying contract. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings solely on the civil aspect.