Domingo vs. Colina

The dismissal of a criminal action based on the prosecution's failure to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt does not automatically extinguish the civil action based on delict, unless there is a categorical finding in a final judgment that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. The civil aspect survives such an acquittal and may be appealed separately, with the civil liability proven by mere preponderance of evidence.

The petitioner, Lucille Domingo, was charged before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Davao City with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing a UCPB Check in the amount of ₱175,000.00 in favor of the respondent, Merlinda Colina, which was dishonored for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED." The case involved the interplay between the criminal and civil aspects of a single act, governed by the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, specifically Section 2, Rule 111, which addresses the extinction of the civil action when the penal action is extinguished.

Lucille Domingo was charged before the MTCC of Davao City with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 in an Information dated March 8, 1999. The Information alleged that on or about February 28, 1998, Domingo issued UCPB Check No. 0014924 in the amount of ₱175,000.00 in payment of an obligation in favor of Merlinda Dy Colina, knowing that she had no funds or credit with the drawee bank. When the check was presented for encashment, it was dishonored for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED," and despite notice of dishonor and repeated demands, Domingo failed and refused to make good the check.

After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence. On October 25, 2001, the MTCC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove elements nos. 2 and 3 of the offense — that the check was applied on account or for value, and that the issuer knew at the time of issuance that she had insufficient funds or credit with the bank. The MTCC also ordered the cancellation and release of Domingo's cash bond.

The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration and, in the alternative, a motion to reopen the civil aspect of the case, contending that even assuming Domingo did not receive valuable consideration for the bounced check, she was nonetheless liable as an accommodation party, and that knowledge of insufficiency of funds is presumed from dishonor. On November 23, 2001, the MTCC denied the motion, stating that "the act from which the civil liability of the accused in favor of the private complainant may arise, does not exist in this case."

Respondent appealed the civil aspect to the RTC of Davao City. On September 30, 2002, the RTC rendered its Decision modifying the MTCC judgment and ordering Domingo to pay Colina the civil liability arising out of the offense charged in the amount of ₱175,000.00, plus interest of 12% per annum from the filing of the complaint and costs of suit. Domingo's motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a petition for review with the CA, which was dismissed on August 12, 2005, and her motion for reconsideration was denied on May 26, 2006.

• Jurisdiction of the RTC: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in upholding the RTC's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the civil aspect, which was allegedly violative of Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, because the MTCC had already ruled that the act from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
• Right to Present Evidence: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in denying her request to adduce evidence on the civil aspect and in ruling that she had waived that right, despite the fact that the demurrer to evidence was filed with prior leave of court.

• Civil Liability Despite Acquittal: The prosecution contended that even assuming petitioner did not receive valuable consideration for her bounced check, she was nonetheless liable to respondent for the face value of the check as an accommodation party.
• Presumption of Knowledge: The prosecution argued that petitioner's knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds in or credit with the bank is presumed from the dishonor of her check.

• Extinction of Civil Liability: Whether the dismissal of the criminal case by the MTCC extinguished the civil action based on delict, thereby depriving the RTC of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the civil aspect.
• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence: Whether the petitioner was denied due process when the CA ruled that she had waived her right to present evidence on the civil aspect of the case.

• Extinction of Civil Liability: No. The MTCC's dismissal of the criminal case was based on reasonable doubt, not on a finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. The civil action based on delict was not extinguished, and the RTC correctly entertained the respondent's appeal of the civil aspect.
• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence: No. The petitioner was not denied due process because she was given the opportunity to be heard, and her failure to timely invoke her right to present evidence on the civil aspect constituted a waiver, as she only raised the matter for the first time in her Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision.

• Extinction of Civil Liability: The Court applied the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides that the extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action, except when there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. The Court also cited the second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 120, which requires that in case of acquittal, the judgment shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. The Court found that the MTCC's Orders of October 25, 2001 and November 23, 2001 did not contain any such finding or determination. The MTCC dismissed the criminal case on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the second and third elements of BP 22, which only meant that the trial court did not convict petitioner because the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The lack of evidence to prove those elements does not mean that petitioner has no existing debt with respondent, a civil aspect which is proven by mere preponderance of evidence. Moreover, the MTCC's pronouncement that the prosecution failed to prove the second and third elements implied that the prosecution was able to establish the first and fourth elements — that petitioner drew and issued a check and that the check was dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. Hence, the fact that petitioner was proven to have drawn and issued a check and that the same was subsequently dishonored leads to the logical conclusion that the fact from which her civil liability might arise indeed exists.
• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence: The Court found no cogent reason to depart from the CA's ruling that for petitioner's failure to invoke her right to present evidence, despite the clear ruling by the RTC that she is civilly liable, she is deemed to have waived such right. The Court noted that petitioner did not dispute that neither in her Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Decision nor in her Petition for Review, as well as in her Memorandum filed with the CA, did she raise the issue of her right to present evidence on the civil aspect. It was only in her Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision that she brought up such matter. The Court cited the principle that the essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process. The question is not whether petitioner succeeded in defending her rights and interests, but simply whether she had the opportunity to present her side of the controversy. The Court also applied the settled rule that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below, and that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage.

• Extinction of civil action based on delict — The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action, except when there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. In this case, the MTCC's dismissal of the criminal case was based on reasonable doubt, not on a categorical finding that the act from which civil liability may arise did not exist, so the civil action survived.
• Quantum of evidence in criminal vs. civil aspects — The lack of evidence to prove the elements of the offense charged in a criminal case does not mean that the accused has no existing debt with the complainant, because the civil aspect is proven by mere preponderance of evidence, a lower quantum than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Due process as opportunity to be heard — The essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. Where such opportunity is accorded, either through oral arguments or pleadings, there is no denial of due process, regardless of whether the party succeeded in defending her rights.
• Waiver of issues not raised below — No question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage.

• "The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist." — This is the controlling statutory provision from Section 2, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which the Court applied to determine that the civil action was not extinguished by the MTCC's dismissal of the criminal case.
• "The lack of evidence to prove the aforesaid elements of the offense charged does not mean that petitioner has no existing debt with respondent, a civil aspect which is proven by another quantum of evidence, a mere preponderance of evidence." — This states the ratio decidendi distinguishing the quantum of evidence required for criminal conviction from that required for civil liability arising from the same act.
• "The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense." — This is the canonical formulation of due process applied by the Court to reject the petitioner's claim of denial of due process.
• "Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process." — This clarifies that the mere opportunity to be heard, not the success of one's defense, satisfies the due process requirement.

• Gomez vs. Alcantara, G.R. No. 179556, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 472 — Cited for the principle that the essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's defense.
• Pasiona, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165471, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 137 — Cited for the rule that the question is not whether a party succeeded in defending her rights, but whether she had the opportunity to present her side of the controversy.
• Lim vs. Mindanao Wines & Liquor Galleria, G.R. No. 175851, July 4, 2012, 675 SCRA 628 — Cited for the settled rule that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below, and that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

• Section 2, Rule 111, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provides that the extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action, except when there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. The Court applied this to hold that the civil action survived the MTCC's dismissal of the criminal case.
• Section 2, Rule 120, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Requires that in case of acquittal, the judgment shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. The Court found that the MTCC's Orders did not contain any such finding or determination.
• Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 — The statute penalizing the issuance of checks without sufficient funds or credit. The Court noted that the MTCC's dismissal was based on the prosecution's failure to prove the second and third elements of the offense, while the first and fourth elements were established.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Roberto A. Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen concurred in the decision.