G.R. No. 151931, September 23, 2003
Anamer Salazar, Petitioner, vs. The People of the Philippines and J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corporation, Respondents.

FACTS

An Information for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against Anamer Salazar and Nena Jaucian Timario. The charge alleged that Timario issued a Prudential Bank check for P214,000.00, which Salazar endorsed and negotiated to J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corporation as payment for 300 cavans of rice. The check was dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. After her arraignment and plea of not guilty, trial ensued. The prosecution established that Salazar purchased the rice, gave the check issued by Timario, and, upon its dishonor, replaced it with her own Solid Bank check, which was also dishonored for being drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD).
After the prosecution rested its case, Salazar filed a Demurrer to Evidence. The Regional Trial Court granted the demurrer, acquitting her on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy with Timario beyond reasonable doubt and that as a mere endorser, her act did not constitute the false pretense penalized under Article 315(2)(d). However, the trial court, in the same decision, held her civilly liable and ordered her to pay J.Y. Brothers the value of the rice. Salazar filed a motion for reconsideration, pleading to be allowed to present evidence on the civil aspect pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, but the motion was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court denied Salazar due process by adjudging her civilly liable without affording her the opportunity to present evidence on the civil aspect of the case after granting her demurrer to evidence.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that Salazar was denied due process. The civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense was deemed instituted with the criminal action. Under Section 11, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial sequence mandates that after the prosecution presents evidence to prove the charge and civil liability, the accused may present evidence to prove her defense. When the trial court granted the demurrer to evidence, it effectively dismissed the criminal charge but proceeded to rule on civil liability based solely on the prosecution’s evidence.
This procedure was a violation of due process. A judgment of acquittal based on a demurrer does not automatically justify a civil award without giving the accused the right to present countervailing evidence on the civil aspect. The Court emphasized that the accused must be afforded the opportunity to adduce evidence on the civil liability after the dismissal of the criminal aspect. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the challenged orders and directed the trial court to continue the trial for the sole purpose of receiving Salazar’s evidence on the civil aspect, followed by the private complainant’s rebuttal evidence if any.