G.R. No. 86062 . June 6, 1990. INTERPACIFIC TRANSIT, INC., petitioner, vs. RUFO AVILES and JOSEPHINE AVILES, respondents.
FACTS:

Private respondents Rufo and Josephine Aviles, sub-agents of petitioner Interpacific Transit, Inc. (ITI), were charged with estafa for allegedly collecting payments for airway bills amounting to P204,030.66 and converting the amount instead of remitting it to ITI. During the criminal trial, the prosecution presented and marked certified photocopies of the airway bills as exhibits over defense objection based on the best evidence rule, with a promise to later submit the originals. The originals were never produced, nor was their loss proven. However, when these photocopies were formally offered in evidence, the defense interposed no objection.
The trial court acquitted the Aviles spouses, ruling that their relationship with ITI was merely creditor-debtor, not agency, and that non-payment did not constitute estafa. The court also held the photocopies inadmissible for being secondary evidence without justification, as the originals were reportedly still in ITI’s bodega. The court explicitly based its resolution of the civil obligation issue on this inadmissibility. The Court of Appeals affirmed. ITI now seeks to enforce the civil liability, arguing the dismissal of the criminal case did not extinguish the civil claim and that the evidence sufficiently established the debt.

ISSUE

Whether the certified photocopies of the airway bills are admissible as evidence to establish the civil liability of the private respondents.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and held the photocopies admissible. The Court clarified the distinction between the identification/marking of documentary evidence and its formal offer. Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time of its formal offer as an exhibit, not during its preliminary identification. In this case, while the defense objected during the identification of the photocopies, it raised no objection when they were formally offered in evidence. Consequently, the evidence was properly admitted. The trial court erred in later excluding it based on the best evidence rule.
Having determined the evidence was admissible, the Court proceeded to evaluate it on the merits for the purpose of civil liability. The airway bills established that the Aviles spouses received the goods from ITI’s clients. The defense of payment was unsupported, relying only on self-serving check stubs without presenting the cancelled checks or bank certifications. Therefore, the respondents failed to prove remittance. Applying the doctrine that a separate civil action is unnecessary when the facts have been established in the criminal proceedings, the Court found sufficient basis in the record to hold the respondents civilly liable. The Court ordered them to pay ITI P204,030.66 with interest, setting aside the decisions of the lower courts.