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 three counts of Estafa for issuing several checks to her relatives, Amelia Casanova, Teresita Eusebio, and Manolito Eusebio, as security for loans. The checks were subsequently dishonored upon presentment for being drawn against a “Closed Account.” The Regional Trial Court acquitted her of the criminal charge of Estafa, finding that the element of deceit was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that the checks were issued merely as evidence of the debt and not as a means to induce the complainants to part with their money. However, the RTC held her civilly liable and ordered her to pay the principal loan amounts plus stipulated interest, totaling P130,900.00 to Casanova, P172,250.00 to Teresita Eusebio, and P60,000.00 to Manolito Eusebio.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the acquittal but modified the civil liability. It found that the stipulated interest was not proven by competent evidence, as there was no written agreement specifying the interest rates for the loans. The CA thus reduced the civil liability to the principal amounts only: P100,000.00 to Casanova, P157,500.00 to Teresita Eusebio, and P50,000.00 to Manolito Eusebio, plus legal interest. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in imposing civil liability and in awarding legal interest.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner civilly liable and in awarding legal interest on the principal loan amounts.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision with modification on the interest rate. The Court upheld the civil liability based on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. An acquittal, especially one based on reasonable doubt as to the criminal intent (deceit), does not extinguish civil liability arising from the same act if it is proven by preponderance of evidence. Here, petitioner admitted obtaining the loans and issuing the checks, establishing her civil obligation by a preponderance of evidence.
On the matter of interest, the Court agreed with the CA that the stipulated interest could not be awarded due to the absence of a written agreement, as required by the Civil Code for monetary interest to be demandable. Consequently, only the principal sums are recoverable. However, these sums shall earn legal interest by way of damages for delay from the time of judicial or extrajudicial demand. The Court set the rate at 12% per annum from December 20, 1994, the date of demand, until full payment, applying the rule for forbearance of money. The award of interest is compensatory, arising from petitioner’s delay in fulfilling her obligation to return the loaned amounts.