G.R. No. 76042. February 23, 1990. JOSE M. BELEN, petitioner, vs. HON. FELICIDARIO M. BATOY, RENATO SANCHEZ, PORFERIO, HAMAMA & BUSTILLO BAYOC, respondents.
FACTS

Petitioner Jose M. Belen, president of the Misamis Oriental-Bukidnon-Camiguin Federation of Cooperatives (MBC), was charged with estafa along with four co-accused. The information alleged they misappropriated the proceeds from the sale of tomatoes produced by farmer-members of the Mamdahilin Farmers Cooperative Association, Inc. (MFCAI). During trial, the public prosecutor moved to dismiss the case against Belen and two others for insufficiency of evidence, which the trial court granted. Trial proceeded against the remaining two accused, Severino Ligutom, Jr. and Jose Pacheco, Jr.
In its Decision dated April 8, 1986, the Regional Trial Court acquitted Ligutom and Pacheco of criminal liability. However, it held them civilly liable, jointly and severally with the previously dismissed accused—including petitioner Belen—ordering all five to pay the claims of the private complainants totaling P1,077,679.19. Belen filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied, prompting this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether an accused, whose criminal case has been dismissed upon the prosecuting fiscal’s motion for insufficiency of evidence, can still be held civilly liable in a subsequent judgment acquitting his co-accused.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s ruling imposing civil liability on petitioner Belen. The civil action was instituted with the criminal case. The dismissal of the criminal case against Belen did not extinguish his civil liability because the dismissal was based on insufficiency of evidence, not on a judicial declaration that the act from which civil liability might arise did not exist. Under Section 2, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, in case of acquittal, unless it is clearly shown that the act underlying the civil liability did not exist, the judgment shall make a finding on the civil liability of the accused.
The Court found that the civil liability arose from contract, not from the felony of estafa. The trial court, in acquitting the accused, ruled the transaction was a purchase and sale, not creating a trust relation necessary for estafa, but it established a civil obligation to pay for the delivered tomatoes. Such civil obligation can proceed independently of the criminal proceedings. The Court cited precedents (Padilla v. CA, People v. Jalandoni) where an accused acquitted on reasonable doubt may still be held civilly liable for damages proved during trial.
Petitioner’s claim of denial of due process, alleging he was not notified of the trial’s continuation after his dismissal, was rejected. The court order dismissing his case also set the next hearing date, which he admittedly received. His failure to appear constituted negligence. The facts for civil liability were already established in the criminal proceedings, showing the farmers delivered tomatoes that were not paid for by the cooperative officers, including Belen. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.