GR 174238; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174238; July 7, 2009
ANITA CHENG, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES WILLIAM SY and TESSIE SY, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Anita Cheng filed estafa and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) cases against respondent spouses William and Tessie Sy based on two dishonored checks issued for a loan of ₱600,000. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the estafa cases for failure to prove the crime’s elements, with one order stating any liability would be purely civil. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) later dismissed the BP Blg. 22 cases on demurrer due to the prosecution’s failure to identify the accused in open court. Neither dismissal order made a pronouncement on civil liability. Subsequently, Cheng filed a separate civil complaint for collection of a sum of money based on the same loan obligation.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s separate civil action for collection is barred, having been deemed impliedly instituted with the previously dismissed criminal cases for violation of BP Blg. 22.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the separate civil action is barred. Under Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the act complained of is deemed instituted with the criminal action, unless waived, reserved separately, or filed prior. This rule applied to the BP Blg. 22 cases filed in 1999, as procedural rules are generally given retroactive effect. The dismissal of the estafa cases on reasonable doubt constituted an implied reservation to litigate the civil aspect separately under Article 29 of the Civil Code. However, following the doctrine in Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, the single civil liability from issuing a bouncing check can be pursued in the civil actions deemed instituted with both the estafa and BP Blg. 22 cases. By pursuing the BP Blg. 22 cases, Cheng was deemed to have elected to prosecute the civil aspect therein. The dismissal of the BP Blg. 22 cases for failure to prove the identity of the accused—a failure of proof on a fundamental element of the crime—operated as an adjudication on the merits of the civil liability impliedly instituted therein. Consequently, the principle of res judicata bars the subsequent filing of a separate civil action based on the same cause.