484 Phil. 87
YNARES-SATIAGO, J.:
BANK | CHECK NO. | DATE | AMOUNT |
Allied Bank | 16041982 | 11-30-94 | P100,000.00 |
Planters Bank | 115954 | 12-2-94 | 4,500.00 |
-do- | 1159561 | 12-4-94 | 9,500.00 |
-do- | 15109854 | 12-4-94 | 2,500.00 |
-do- | 15109930 | 12-7-94 | 5,000.00 |
PCIB | 214723 | 12-7-94 | 5,000.00 |
Planters Bank | 115968 | 12-9-94 | 4,400.00 |
(Total Amount Sipplied ) | P130,000.00 |
BANK | CHECK NO. | DATE | AMOUNT |
Allied Bank | 16076401 | 11-15-94 | P54,500.00 |
-do- | 16076402 | 11-30-94 | 105,000.00 |
PCIB | 214730 | 11-30-94 | 2,500.00 |
PCIB | 214796 | 11-30-94 | 1,750.00 |
Planters Bank | 15109960 | 12-03-94 | 5,000.00 |
Allied Bank | 16083156 | 12-03-94 | 2,500.00 |
Planters Bank | 15094519 | 11-30-94 | 3,000.00 |
(Total Amount Sipplied ) | P172,250.00 |
In Criminal Case No. 1192-M-95:The private complainants, Teresita Eusebio, Amelia Casanova and Manolito Eusebio, are petitioner’s aunt and cousins, respectively.
That in or about the months of June to November, 1994, in the municipality of Pulilan, province of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of deceit, false pretenses and fraudulent manifestations, and pretending to have sufficient funds with the Allied Bank and Planters Bank, Plaridel Branch, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, prepared, issue and make out the following checks to wit:
BANK CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT Allied Bank 16083115 12-3-94 P2,500.00-do- 16063578 12-6-94 50,000.00-do- 16063577 12-6-94 2,500.00-do- 16076436 12-13-94 2,500.00Planters Bank 116202 12-13-94 2,500.00(Total Amount Sipplied ) P60,000.00
drawn against the said banks, and deliver the said checks to one Manolito G. Eusebio as exchange for cash received from the said Manolito G. Eusebio, knowing fully well that at the time the checks were issued, her representations were false for she had no sufficient funds in the said bank, so much so, that upon presentation of the said checks with the said banks for deposit or encashment, the same were dishonored and refused payment for having been drawn against a “Closed Account” and inspite of repeated demands to deposit with the said banks the total amount of P60,000.00, the said accused failed and refused to do so, to the damage and prejudice of the said Manolito G. Eusebio in the said total amount of P60,000.00.[5]
In Criminal Case No. 1190-M-95:The trial court denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.[9] Hence, petitioner appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Court of Appeals.
PREMISES CONSIDERED the complainant in Criminal Case No. 1190-M-95 wherein the complainant is one Amelia Casanova was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of herein accused because she would not have parted with her P100,000.00 if not for the assurance that the check issued was properly funded.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment finding accused ELIZABETH E. CALDERON of Poblacion, Pulilan, Bulacan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under Par. 2 (d) of Art. 315, Revised Penal Code as amended by P.D. 818 and sentencing the said accused as follows:Necessarily, the other checks exhibits “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “G” in the amount of P5,000.00, P5,000.00, P4,400.00, P4,500.00, P9,500.00 and P 2,500.00 respectively in the total amount of P30,900.00 is hereby DISMISSED the same being civil in nature and are interest of transaction other than the principal amount of P100,000.00.[6]
- To suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of nine (9) years and one (1) day of PRISION MAYOR as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS FOUR (4) months and one (1) day of RECLUSION TEMPORAL as maximum;
- To suffer the accessory penalties provided by law;
- To pay the cost; and
- To indemnify the complainant Amelia Casanova the sum of P100,000.00. (Exh. “A”)
In Criminal Case No. 1191-M-95:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the court finds accused Elizabeth Calderon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ESTAFA defined and penalized under Par. 2 (d) of Art. 315, Revised Penal Code as amended by P.D. 818 sentencing the said accused as follows:In Criminal Case No. 1192-M-95:
- To suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of PRISION MAYOR as minimum to seventeen (17) years FOUR (4) months and one (1) day of RECLUSION TEMPORAL as maximum;
- To suffer the accessory penalties provided by law;
- To pay the cost; and
- To indemnify the complainant Teresita Eusebio the sum of P157,500.00 representing the two checks, exhibits “A” and “B”.[7]
WHEREFORE, the court hereby renders judgment finding accused Elizabeth Calderon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the Crime of ESTAFA defined and penalized under Par. 2 (d) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by P.D. 818 and sentencing the said accused as follows:The other checks exhibit “B” to “E” are hereby DISMISSED.[8]
- To suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of FOUR (4) years 2 months and one (1) day of PRISION CORRECCIONAL as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of PRISION MAYOR;
- To suffer the accessory penalties provided by law;
- To pay the costs; and
- To indemnify the complainant Manolito Eusebio the sum of P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from in so far as it bears on the criminal liability of the accused is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is issued ACQUITTING the accused of the crimes charged on the ground that her guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, she is held civilly liable as follows:In the instant petition for review, petitioner raises the following errors:In Criminal Case No. 1190-M-95: To indemnify Amelia Casanova the total amount of P130,900.00;all with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum effective December 20, 1994, the date of complainants’ demand thru their counsel, until fully paid, and to pay costs.
In Criminal Case No. 1191-M-95: To indemnify Teresita Eusebio the total amount of P172,250.00;
In Criminal Case No. 1192-M-95: To indemnify Manolito Eusebio the total amount of P60,000.00;
SO ORDERED.[10]
The issues for resolution are as follows: (1) Did the Court of Appeals err in finding the appellant civilly liable to complainants with respect to the interest in the principal loan despite the dismissal of the interest checks by the Regional Trial Court? (2) Is the interest agreed upon by the parties usurious? (3) Should the private respondents file a separate civil complaint for the claim of Sum of Money?
- The Honorable Court of Appeals failed to consider that on the face of the Decision rendered by the Presiding Judge of RTC – Branch 17, Malolos City, that interest checks were dismissed but found the appellant guilty with respect to the principal loan checks in the three cases above mentioned.
- The Honorable Court of Appeals failed to consider that the whole transactions that transpired between appellant and private appellees covered a period lasting in years whereby private appellees charged appellant highly usurious interests which under current jurisprudence maintains that usurious interests are void.
- With utmost due respect, the Honorable Court of Appeals failed to consider that under the sorry state of affairs which petitioner experienced when the instant three criminal cases were pending before RTC – Branch 79, Malolos City, that private respondents should have filed a separate civil complaint for their alleged claim of Sum of Money.[11]
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. – (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.In the case of Manantan v. Court of Appeals,[15] we elucidated on the two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law as well as its different effects on the civil liability of the accused. Thus:
x x x. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in Article 29 of the Civil Code, x x x.An accused who is acquitted of Estafa may nevertheless be held civilly liable where the facts established by the evidence so warrant.[16] Petitioner Elizabeth Calderon is clearly liable to the private respondents for the amount borrowed. The Court of Appeals found that the former did not employ trickery or deceit in obtaining money from the private complainants, instead, it concluded that the money obtained was undoubtedly loans for which petitioner paid interest. The checks issued by petitioner as payment for the principal loan constitute evidence of her civil liability which was deemed instituted with the criminal action.
When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. (Emphasis supplied)Hence, petitioner is liable for the payment of legal interest per annum to be computed from December 20, 1994, the date when she received the demand letter. After the judgment becomes final and executory until the obligation is satisfied, the amount due shall earn interest at 12% per year, the interim period being deemed equivalent to a forbearance of credit.[21]