Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Case Title:Dy vs.

People Ruling:
NO.
Facts: RATIO DECIDENDI: The SC agrees with petitioner’s
Gloria Dy was the former General Manager of MCCI. Among contention.
the businesses wherein she assisted was the construction
of the warehouses in their Numancia Property (property Civil liability arising from a crime
leased by MCCI from PNB). In May 1996, Dy proposed to  A crime is a liability against the state. It is
Mandy the purchase of a property owned by Pantranco. prosecuted by and for the state.
Mandy agreed to take a P20million loan from International  On the other hand, civil liabilities take a less public
China Bank of Commerce (ICBC) secured by a chattel and more private nature. Civil liabilities are
mortgage over the warehouses in the Numancia Property. claimed through civil actions as a means to
Dy was entrusted to manage the payment of the loan. enforce or protect a right or prevent or redress a
February 1999 – A notice of foreclosure was received by wrong.
MCCI. Around 25 checks amounting to ~P21million was  Nevertheless, our jurisdiction recognizes that a
issued by MCCI (all payable to cash). Mandy delivered the crime has a private civil component. It is in
checks to Dy. Mandy claims that he delivered the checks recognition of this dual nature of a criminal act
with the instruction that petitioner use the checks to pay that our RPC provides that every person
the loan. Dy, on the other hand, testified that she encashed criminally liable is also civilly liable. This is the
the checks and returned the money to Mandy. ICBC concept of civil liability ex delicto.
eventually foreclosed on the property as MCCI continued  This is reinforced by Article 30 of the same code
to default in its obligation. Mandy eventually found out which refers to the filing of a separate civil action
that not a check was paid to ICBC. to demand civil liability arising from a criminal
offense. The RPC fleshes out this civil liability in
On Oct. 2002, a complaint for Estafa was filed by MCCI, Article 104 which states that it includes
through Mandy, against Dy. The RTC Manila found that restitution, reparation of damage caused and
while petitioner admitted that she received the checks, the indemnification for consequential damages.
prosecution failed to establish that she was under any
obligation to deliver them to ICBC in payment of MCCI's Difference between civil and criminal proceedings
loan. RTC found strength in Mandy’s admission that Mandy  Quantum of proof needed: guilty beyond
gave the checks to Dy with the agreement that Dy would reasonable doubt for criminal proceedings; only
encash them. Then Dy would pay ICBC using her own preponderance of evidence in civil proceedings
checks. (This is why the civil liability may still survive
even after the accused is acquitted due to the
RTC held that Mandy and petitioner entered into a contract prosecution’s failure to prove that the accused’s
of loan. Thus, it held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt is beyond reasonable doubt.)
an important element of the crime of estafa -  The criminal liability and civil liability are
misappropriation or conversion. separate and distinct. They may coexist but their
existence is not dependent on each other.
Dy is acquitted but still ordered to pay the amount of
checks (P21,706,281.00) to complainant. Two kinds of acquittal and its effect on the civil
liability
Dy appealed. The CA said that it is settled that when an  Based on Manantan vs. CA –
accused is acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt, (1) an acquittal on the ground that the accused is
courts may still find him or her civilly liable if the evidence not the author of the act or omission
so warrant. Preventing complainant from recovering the complained of – no crime was committed:
amount of checks would constitute unjust enrichment. RTC There being no delict, it follows that there is
affirmed. MR denied. no civil liability ex delicto. This is what is
contemplated by ROC Rule 111.
Petitioner’s Contention: (2) an acquittal based on reasonable doubt of the
Frias argued that the interest rate was contrary to the MOA accused – This is what is contemplated in NCC
because it provided that if San Diego-Sison would decide Art. 29. In this case, even if the guilt of the
not to purchase the property, Frias has the period of accused has not been satisfactorily
another six months to pay the loan with compounded established, he is not exempt from civil
bank interest for the last six months only. liability which may be proved by
preponderance of evidence only.
Issue:
WON petitioner should still be civilly liable for the crime of Civil Liability Ex Delicto in Estafa Cases – jurisprudence
estafa when she has already been acquitted for failure of shows two different judgments of the Supreme Court.
the prosecution to prove all the elements of estafa
Elements of estafa (RPC Art. 315):
(1) That the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse
of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit; and
(2) That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or third
person.

The essence of the crime is the unlawful abuse of


confidence or deceit in order to cause damage. The SC
disagrees with the lower courts that Dy was only acquitted
because of reasonable doubt.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi