[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
666 views1 page

Park Vs Choi GR165496 (Delict)

The Supreme Court ruled that the remand of the case by the Regional Trial Court to the Metropolitan Trial Court was proper. When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the court is required to decide both the criminal and civil aspects of the case. While the evidence may be insufficient to prove criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not necessarily mean it is insufficient to prove civil liability based on a preponderance of evidence. In this case, the Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the criminal case but made no determination that the act from which civil liability arose did not exist. Therefore, the Regional Trial Court correctly remanded the case to the Metropolitan Trial Court to determine the civil claims.

Uploaded by

Mary Dorothy Tormis Talidro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
666 views1 page

Park Vs Choi GR165496 (Delict)

The Supreme Court ruled that the remand of the case by the Regional Trial Court to the Metropolitan Trial Court was proper. When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the court is required to decide both the criminal and civil aspects of the case. While the evidence may be insufficient to prove criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not necessarily mean it is insufficient to prove civil liability based on a preponderance of evidence. In this case, the Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the criminal case but made no determination that the act from which civil liability arose did not exist. Therefore, the Regional Trial Court correctly remanded the case to the Metropolitan Trial Court to determine the civil claims.

Uploaded by

Mary Dorothy Tormis Talidro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

HUN HYUNG PARK v. EUNG WON CHOI GR no.

165496 February 12, 2007

FACTS:
Eung Won Choi (Choi) was charged for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise
known as the Bouncing Checks Law, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati for issuing a
postdated check in the amount of P1,875,000. The same was dishonored for having been drawn
against insufficient funds. Choi filed a demurer to evidence after the prosecution rested its case.
The Makati Metropolitan Trial Court granted the Demurrer and dismissed the case.

Hun Hyung Park (Park) appealed the civil aspect of the case to the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Makati, contending that the dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil
aspect. RTC held that while the evidence presented was insufficient to prove respondent‘s
criminal liability, it did not altogether extinguish his civil liability. Upon a motion for reconsideration,
however, the RTC set aside its decision and ordered the remand of the case to the MeTC for
further proceedings, so that the defendant may adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the remand of the case to the MeTC is proper

HELD:
When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the whole case is submitted for
judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution as the accused is deemed to have
waived the right to present evidence. At that juncture, the court is called upon to decide the case
including its civil aspect, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has
been waived or reserved.
If the evidence so far presented is insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not follow
that the same evidence is insufficient to establish a preponderance of evidence. For if the court
grants the demurrer, proceedings on the civil aspect of the case generally continues. The only
recognized instance when an acquittal on demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the civil aspect
is when there is a finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist. Absent such determination, trial as to the civil aspect of the case must perforce continue.
In the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case without any finding
that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Choi did not assail the
RTC order of remand. He thereby recognized that there is basis for a remand. Hence it is
appropriate to remand the case to MeTC for proper determination of claims in civil aspect.

You might also like