Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

A pleading verified under Section 4, Rule 7 must be anchored on personal knowledge, authentic records, or both, depending on the nature of the allegations; the pleader may not arbitrarily elect a verification basis inconsistent with the source of the allegations. When a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court is granted and the accused is acquitted, the civil aspect is not automatically extinguished absent an express finding that the act or omission giving rise to civil liability did not exist, and the accused retains the right to present evidence on the civil aspect.

Hun Hyung Park was the private complainant in a criminal prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Eung Won Choi, who allegedly issued a Philippine National Bank check for ₱1,875,000 that was dishonored for insufficient funds. During trial, Choi filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court, asserting that the prosecution failed to prove he received the notice of dishonor. The MeTC granted the demurrer, dismissed the criminal case, and Park subsequently sought to recover the civil liability. The ensuing dispute over the viability of the civil aspect following acquittal on demurrer, and the procedural deficiencies in the appeal, reached the Supreme Court.

• The Dishonored Check and Criminal Case: On June 28, 1999, respondent issued Philippine National Bank Check No. 0077133 postdated August 28, 1999 in the amount of ₱1,875,000 to petitioner. The check was dishonored for insufficient funds. An Information for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was filed on August 31, 2000 before the MeTC of Makati City. Respondent pleaded not guilty.
• Demurrer to Evidence: After the prosecution rested, respondent, with leave of court, filed a Demurrer to Evidence. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove he received the notice of dishonor, and thus the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise. The MeTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case by Order dated February 27, 2003. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
• Appeal of the Civil Aspect: Petitioner appealed to the RTC solely on the civil aspect of the dismissal, contending that the extinction of criminal liability did not extinguish civil liability. The RTC, on September 11, 2003, ruled that civil liability remained and ordered respondent to pay ₱1,875,000 with legal interest. On respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the RTC set aside its decision and ordered remand to the MeTC for respondent to adduce evidence on the civil aspect, noting that respondent had filed the demurrer with leave of court.
• Conflicting Versions on the Underlying Obligation: Respondent claimed he borrowed only ₱1,500,000, with the remainder representing interest, and that he had made partial payments totaling ₱1,590,000. Petitioner countered that the payments pertained to other transactions. These factual disputes were unresolved.
• Petition before the Court of Appeals: Petitioner filed a petition for review with the CA. The verification stated that the allegations were “true and correct of my own personal knowledge,” although portions of the petition referred to events outside petitioner’s personal knowledge. The attached copy of the RTC’s September 11, 2003 Decision was an uncertified, illegible machine copy. The petition was not accompanied by copies of the motion for leave to file demurrer, the demurrer itself, the opposition, or the MeTC dismissal order. The CA dismissed the petition on these procedural grounds.

• Verification: Petitioner argued that Section 4, Rule 7 uses the disjunctive “or,” permitting verification based on personal knowledge or authentic records. He elected to verify based on personal knowledge, which was legally sufficient, and the CA erred in demanding verification based on authentic records.
• Failure to Attach Documents: Petitioner maintained that the documents the CA identified (motion for leave, demurrer, opposition, MeTC order) were immaterial to his appeal because he appealed only the civil aspect of the case. He later submitted most of the missing documents with his motion for reconsideration.
• Uncertified and Illegible RTC Decision: Petitioner noted that he submitted a duplicate original copy of the September 11, 2003 RTC Decision with his motion for reconsideration, thereby curing the defect.
• Non-Joinder of the People of the Philippines: Petitioner asserted that the People of the Philippines was not a necessary party because his appeal was limited to the civil aspect; the real parties in interest in the civil aspect are the offended party and the accused.
• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence on the Civil Aspect: Petitioner argued that under Section 1 of Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, when a demurrer to evidence is granted but reversed on appeal, the defendant is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. He further contended that respondent’s oral opposition to the motion for reconsideration, where respondent pleaded for proceedings on the civil aspect to continue, did not constitute a valid exercise of that right.

• Verification: Respondent countered that the word “or” may be interpreted conjunctively when the context warrants. Petitioner could not verify allegations concerning matters he did not personally witness (such as the pre-trial conference) based on personal knowledge, and was required to rely on authentic records.
• Failure to Attach Required Documents: Respondent argued that the missing documents were material because the civil aspect was dismissed on the same demurrer. The failure to attach certified true copies of the MeTC and RTC orders, as required by Section 2(d) of Rule 42, was a fatal defect.
• Remand and Right to Present Evidence: Respondent maintained that because he filed his demurrer with leave of court, he retained the right to present evidence on the civil aspect. The MeTC made no finding that the act or omission giving rise to civil liability did not exist; thus, the civil action survived, and the remand was proper.

• Verification: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition on the ground that the verification, based solely on personal knowledge, was defective when the allegations were drawn from court records.
• Attachments and Certified True Copies: Whether dismissal was proper for failure to attach material pleadings and to submit a legible certified true copy of the RTC decision as required by Section 2(d) of Rule 42.
• Non-Joinder of the People of the Philippines: Whether the failure to implead the People of the Philippines as a party-respondent warranted dismissal, given that the appeal pertained exclusively to the civil aspect.
• Effect of Grant of Demurrer on the Civil Aspect: Whether the RTC correctly ordered remand to the MeTC for reception of evidence on the civil aspect after the demurrer to evidence had been granted and the accused acquitted.
• Waiver under Rule 33: Whether respondent waived his right to present evidence on the civil aspect by operation of Section 1, Rule 33 of the Rules of Court or through his oral submissions.

• Verification: The dismissal on this ground was proper. Section 4 of Rule 7 provides two permissible bases for verification — personal knowledge or authentic records — and the appropriate basis depends on the nature of the allegations. Petitioner’s petition contained allegations about matters he could not have personally known, such as admissions at a pre-trial conference he did not attend. Where the greater part of the allegations is derived from court records, verification must be anchored on authentic records. The word “or” does not grant the pleader an unfettered choice; the verification must correspond to the surrounding nature of the allegations. Verification is not an empty ritual, and strict enforcement is required unless compelling circumstances justify relaxation.
• Attachments and Certified True Copies: The dismissal was proper. Section 2(d) of Rule 42 requires that a petition for review before the CA be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court. The attached RTC decision was uncertified and illegible, and petitioner failed to attach certified true copies of the MeTC orders and other crucial pleadings. The materiality of the missing documents was apparent because the civil aspect was dismissed on the same demurrer. Belated submission with the motion for reconsideration did not cure the non-compliance, absent strong compelling reasons to relax the rules.
• Non-Joinder of the People of the Philippines: This ground was of no moment. Petitioner appealed only the civil aspect of the case, so the real parties in interest were the offended party and the accused; the People of the Philippines was not a necessary party. This error did not remedy the other fatal procedural defects.
• Effect of Grant of Demurrer on the Civil Aspect: The remand was proper. When a demurrer to evidence is filed with leave of court and is granted, the civil aspect is not automatically extinguished. The civil action survives unless the trial court expressly finds that the act or omission from which civil liability could arise did not exist. The MeTC made no such finding, so the accused retained the right to present evidence on the civil aspect. The Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Rules of Civil Procedure, govern the civil aspect of a criminal case.
• Waiver under Rule 33: Petitioner’s waiver argument was untenable. Section 1, Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is inapplicable to the civil aspect of a criminal action. Waiver of the right to present evidence must be positively demonstrated, and courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against it. Respondent’s filing of a motion for leave to file demurrer expressly preserved his right to present evidence, and no unambiguous waiver appeared in the record.

• Verification under Section 4, Rule 7 — A pleading may be verified by an affidavit stating that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations are true and correct based on personal knowledge, or based on authentic records, or both. The appropriate basis is determined by the nature of the allegations; a pleader may not arbitrarily choose a method inconsistent with the source of the allegations. When allegations are drawn from court records, verification must be based on authentic records. The requirement is not jurisdictional but is strictly enforced; relaxation is warranted only upon compelling and justifiable circumstances.
• Civil Aspect after Grant of Demurrer to Evidence — When a demurrer to evidence is filed with leave of court and granted, resulting in acquittal, the civil aspect is not automatically extinguished. The civil action survives unless the trial court expressly declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Absent such a declaration, the accused retains the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect, and the case may be remanded for further proceedings limited to that issue. The governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence — Waiver of the right to present evidence must be positively demonstrated and cannot be presumed from ambiguous conduct. Every reasonable presumption against waiver must be indulged.

• “Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality. Its import must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what is at stake is the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative.”
• “The word ‘or’ … bears both a disjunctive and conjunctive sense … [T]his parallel legal signification avoids a construction that will exclude the combination of the alternatives or bar the efficacy of any one of the alternatives standing alone … [T]he range of permutation is not left to the pleader’s liking, but is dependent on the surrounding nature of the allegations which may warrant that a verification be based either purely on personal knowledge, or entirely on authentic records, or on both sources.”
• “If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless the court also declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.” (quoting Salazar v. People, 458 Phil. 504 (2003))
• “While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.”

• Salazar v. People, 458 Phil. 504 (2003) — The Court relied on this case for the controlling rule that when a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court is granted and the accused is acquitted, the accused retains the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect unless the court finds that the act or omission from which civil liability may arise did not exist. Followed.
• Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 436 Phil. 641 (2002) — Cited for the principle that the real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a criminal case are the offended party and the accused, and that the public prosecutor generally has no interest in appealing the civil aspect after acquittal. Applied.
• Clavecilla v. Quitain, G.R. No. 147989, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 623 — Cited for the strict enforcement of the verification and certification requirements; disregard of procedural rules cannot be justified by mere invocation of liberal construction. Followed.
• Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 780 (1996) — Quoted for the proposition that courts and litigants must strictly abide by procedural rules, with liberality allowed only in proper cases and under justifiable causes. Followed.
• Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 157 (1997) — Distinguished; that case did not require a certified true copy of the lower court’s decision because it was rendered in the petitioner’s favor, unlike here where the orders sought to be reviewed were adverse.

• Section 4, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC — Prescribes the manner of verification. The Court held that verification based on personal knowledge was insufficient where the petition’s allegations were derived from court records not within the pleader’s personal knowledge.
• Section 2(d), Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires that a petition for review before the Court of Appeals be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court. Non-compliance justified dismissal absent compelling reasons.
• Section 23, Rule 119, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Governs demurrer to evidence. The Court distinguished between a demurrer filed without leave (which waives the right to present evidence) and one filed with leave (which preserves that right). The respondent’s filing with leave preserved his right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect.
• Section 1(b), Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Prohibits reservation to file a separate civil action in B.P. 22 cases. The civil action was thus deemed instituted with the criminal case, obliging the court to resolve civil liability even upon acquittal unless the act or omission did not exist.
• Section 2, last paragraph, Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that the civil action based on delict is extinguished if the final judgment in the criminal action finds that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. The MeTC made no such finding, so the civil action survived.
• Section 11(b), Rule 122, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — States that an appeal by the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgment; cited to underscore that the appeal pertained solely to civil liability.
• Section 1, Rule 33, Rules of Court (Civil Procedure) — Deemed inapplicable to the civil aspect of a criminal case; the Rules of Criminal Procedure govern.

Associate Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairperson), Antonio T. Carpio, Dante O. Tinga, and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. concurred. Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno certified that the conclusions were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

N/A — The decision was unanimous.