G.R. No. 237159 , September 29, 2021
Alberto Wong, Petitioner, vs. Benny H. Wong, Estelita Wong, and Patrick Law, Respondents.

FACTS

The case stemmed from an Information for Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code filed against respondents Benny H. Wong, Estelita Wong (Spouses Wong), and Patrick Law. The prosecution alleged that from March 2001 to April 2002, the respondents, conspiring together, defrauded petitioner Alberto Wong by issuing four postdated checks totaling PHP 37,500,000.00, drawn from closed bank accounts, in exchange for cash. The checks were dishonored upon presentment. After the prosecution rested its case, the Spouses Wong filed a Demurrer to Evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the demurrer and dismissed the criminal case against the Spouses Wong for want of sufficient evidence and on reasonable doubt, finding no deceit was proven and that the checks were issued merely as guarantees for pre-existing loan obligations. The RTC also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on the civil aspect, noting the loans appeared to be corporate debts of Morning Star Travel & Tours, Inc., and that the corporation was not a party to the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders, agreeing that the prosecution failed to prove deceit and that the acquittal, being based on the non-existence of the act from which civil liability might arise, extinguished any civil liability ex delicto.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to make a pronouncement on, or remanding for determination of, the civil liability of the Spouses Wong following their acquittal in the criminal case for Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the civil liability deemed instituted in a criminal action is solely civil liability ex delicto (arising from the crime). Citing Dy v. People, the Court ruled that when the elements of Estafa are not established and the delivery of property (or money) is pursuant to a contract (such as a loan), any civil liability arising from that contract is ex contractu (arising from the contract) and is not the civil liability impliedly instituted in the criminal case. Since the RTC found the transaction to be a pure loan and acquitted the Spouses Wong due to lack of deceit, the civil liability, if any, springs from the contract of loan. Such civil liability ex contractu is separate and distinct, and must be claimed in a separate civil action. Therefore, the RTC and the CA correctly refrained from adjudicating the civil aspect in the criminal case.