Acquittal in BP 22, no effect on estate case
An acquittal in a BP 22 case has no effect in an estafa case, even if both cases were founded
on the same factual circumstances
BP 22 Estafa (Article 315(2)(d))
mere issuance of a check that is dishonoured gives deceit and damage are essential elements
rise to the presumption of knowledge on the part of
the drawer that he issued the same without
sufficient funds
drawer of the dishonoured check may be convicted if drawer issued the dishonored check for a pre
even if he had issued the same for a pre-existing existing obligation, it will negate criminal liability
obligation
penalty: imprisonment of not less than thirty days penalty: penalty of prision correccional in its
but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
less than but not more than double the amount of period if the amount is over P12,000.00 but does not
the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two exceed P22,000.00. If the amount swindled exceeds
Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and P22,000.00, the penalty shall be imposed in its
imprisonment at the discretion of the court. maximum period, adding one year for each
additional P10,000.00, but the total penalty which
may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years.
crime against public interests (it does injury to the crime against property
entire banking system)
mala prohibita mala in se
*(Nierras v. Judge Dacuycuy, 260 Phil. 6, 1990)
DY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES(G.R. No. 189081, August 10, 2016)
The RTC acquitted the petitioner of the crime of estafa on the ground that the prosecution
failed to establish misappropriation or conversion because it was proved that the complainant and
petitioner entered into a loan(contract). However, it ordered her to pay the amount of the checks she
received. Petitioner filed an appeal of the civil aspect of the RTC Decision with the CA found the
appeal without merit, holding that the acquittal of petitioner does not necessarily absolve her of civil
liability.
Supreme Court Ruling: The lower courts erred when they ordered petitioner to pay her civil
obligation arising from a contract of loan in the same criminal case where she was acquitted on the
ground that there was no crime. Any contractual obligation she may have must be litigated in a
separate civil action involving the contract of loan. We clarify that in cases where the accused is
acquitted on the ground that there is no crime, the civil action deemed instituted with the criminal
case cannot prosper precisely because there is no delict from which any civil obligation may be
sourced. The peculiarity of this case is the finding that petitioner, in fact, has an obligation arising
from a contract. This civil action arising from the contract is not necessarily extinguished. It can be
instituted in the proper court through the proper civil action.
Biscocho v. People (G.R. No. 76233, January 15, 1988)
Biscocho was charged with violation of Republic Act No. 3019 by preparing the development
plan for the construction of a road, the actual construction of which was handled by the Bureau of
Public Highways. She had no direct hand in carrying out the plans which she proposed. The
Sandiganbayan acquitted Biscocho, but required her to pay P30,000.00 actual damages to coplainant.
Supreme Court Ruling: Biscocho did not participate in the building of the road. Hence, she cannot
be held civilly liable for acts which were not her own doing.
Occena v. Icamina (G.R. No. 82146, January 22, 1990)
Icamina was found guilty of slight oral defamation and sentenced to a fine of P50.00 with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. No civil liability arising from the felonious act was
adjudged.
Supreme Court Ruling: This is erroneous. As a general rule, a person who is found to be criminally
liable offends two (2) entities: the state or society in which he lives and the individual member of the
society or private person who was injured or damaged by the punishable act or omission. The
offense of which private respondent was found guilty is not one of those felonies where no civil
liability results because either there is no offended party or no damage was caused to a private
person. There is here an offended party, whose main contention precisely is that he suffered
damages in view of the defamatory words and statements uttered by private respondent.
