You are on page 1of 2

prevent the foreclosure, Mandy instructed petitioner to facilitate the

Dy v. People of the Philippines (Vi)

payment of the loan. MCCI, through Mandy, issued 13 Allied Bank
August 10, 2016| Jardeleza, J. | Civil liability arising from criminal case checks and 12 AsiaTrust Bank checks in varying amounts and in
PETITIONER: Gloria S. Dy different dates covering the period from May 18, 1999 to April 4,
RESPONDENTS: People of the Philippines, Mandy Commodities Co. Inc. 2000 with a total amount of P21,706,281.00.
4. Mandy delivered the checks to Dy. Mandy claims that he delivered
(MCCI) represented by William Mandy
the checks with the instruction that petitioner use the checks to pay
SUMMARY: Gloria DY was given checks to pay a loan to the ICBC but the loan. While Dy testified that she encashed the checks and
not a check was paid. A case for estafa was filed and the RTC Manila returned the money to Mandy. ICBC foreclosed the mortgaged
acquitted her because the prosecution failed to prove misappropriation property as MCCI continued to default. Mandy claims that it was
(element of estafa) but said she still had to pay the amount of the checks. only at this point discovered that not a check was paid.
CA denied her appeal. The issue is whether Dy still had civil liability even 5. Mandy filed a complaint-affidavit against Dy for estafa. The RTC
if she was acquitted because the prosecution was not able to prove an Manila acquitted Dy saying that she received the checks but the
element. SC ruled that Dy has no civil liability because there was no crime prosecution failed to establish that she was under any obligation to
of estafa in the first place since the element of misappropriation was not deliver them to ICBC in payment of MCCI's loan. The trial court
proven. Dy’s civil liability arises from a contract of loan and therefore, made this finding on the strength of Mandy's admission that he gave
should not be awarded through the criminal action but must be filed the checks to petitioner with the agreement that she would encash
separately. them. Dy would then pay ICBC using her own checks. The trial
court also said that Mandy and petitioner entered into a contract of
DOCTRINE: Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly loan. Thus, it held that the prosecution failed to establish an
liable but if the person is acquitted because the elements of the crime were important element of the crime of estafa — misappropriation or
not shown to exist, there is no crime and therefore, no civil liability ex conversion. However, while the RTC Manila acquitted petitioner,
delicto. Civil liability arising from a contract of loan should be filed it ordered her to pay the amount of the checks.
separately. 6. Dy appealed to the CA but it found the petition without merit stating
that acquittal doesn’t necessarily absolve her civil liability. CA said
that when an accused is acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt,
FACTS: courts may still find him or her civilly liable if the evidence so
warrant. The evidence show that Dy received the checks as a loan
1. Gloria Dy was the former General Manager of MCCI. She assisted from MCCI and preventing to recover would be unjust enrichment.
in the business involving several properties, one of which was the The CA also denied her MR.
construction of warehouses over Numancia Property that MCCI
leased from PNB.
2. She proposed to William Mandy the purchase of a property owned ISSUES:
by Pantranco and obtained a loan from International China Bank of 1. Whether Dy has civil liability in the criminal case of estafa when
Commerce (ICBC) of P20,000,000 evidenced with a promissory she was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove all
note. As security, MCCI also executed a chattel mortgage over the elements of the crime – NO
warehouses in the Numancia Property. Mandy entrusted petitioner
with the obligation to manage the payment of the loan. RATIO:
3. In Feb 1999, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the 1. Criminal liability involves imprisonment and is against the State
mortgaged property due to its default in paying the loan. In order to while civil liability is compensated through damages and is to
protect a right. The concept of civil liability ex delicto 7. Under Pantig and Singson, whenever the elements of estafa are not
acknowledges that every person criminally liable is civilly liable. established, and that the delivery of any personal property was
2. Rules of Court provide that when a criminal action is instituted, the made pursuant to a contract, any civil liability arising from the
estafa cannot be awarded in the criminal case. This is because the
civil action for liability is also instituted. But these have different civil liability arising from the contract is not civil liability ex delicto,
standards of evidence: proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal) which arises from the same act or omission constituting the crime.
and preponderance of evidence (civil). Therefore, these cases are 8. In this case, it is civil liability ex contractu and should be filed
separate and distinct. Extinction of criminal doesn’t necessarily separately. Because when the elements of estafa do not exist, there
mean the extinction of the civil case. The civil case may only be is no crime and therefore, no civil liability ex delicto. Here, the
liability is from a contract of loan and is completely inconsistent
extinguished when there is a "finding in a final judgment in the
with the presence of estafa. A civil action for collection of sum of
criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil money should be filed separately. The loan was also just tangentially
liability may arise did not exist." So, the judgment must say proven (no direct evidence since oral loan)
whether the court failed to prove the guilt or merely failed to prove 9. Conclusion: The lower courts erred when they ordered
beyond reasonable doubt. petitioner to pay her civil obligation arising from a contract of
3. In Manantan v. CA, there are 2 kinds of acquittal: 1) accused is not loan in the same criminal case where she was acquitted on the
ground that there was no crime. Any contractual obligation she
the author of the act – can’t give rise to civil liability; and 2) acquittal
may have must be litigated in a separate civil action involving
based on reasonable doubt – not exempt from civil liability. Hence, the contract of loan. We clarify that in cases where the accused
while the evidence presented does not establish the fact of the crime is acquitted on the ground that there is no crime, the civil action
with moral certainty, the civil action still prevails for as long as the deemed instituted with the criminal case cannot prosper
greater weight of evidence tilts in favor of a finding of liability. precisely because there is no delict from which any civil
obligation may be sourced
4. The elements of estafa are: 1) accused defrauded another by (a)
10. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the
abuse of confidence or (b) deceit; and 2) damage capable of
pecuniary estimation. The Court previously held that fraud or bad
faith is indispensable. And the circumstances in Art. 315, par. 1(b)
is that the fraud considered criminal is the act of misappropriation
or conversion and if missing, no estafa.
5. In this case, the RTC Manila acquitted petitioner because there was
no adequate evidence to prove that Mandy gave the checks to
petitioner with the instruction that she will use them to pay the
ICBC loan. The RTC Manila held that when Mandy delivered the
checks to petitioner, their agreement was that it was a "sort of loan."
6. Earlier cases ordered the dismissal of the civil action for recovery
of civil liability ex delicto whenever there is a finding that there
was no estafa but rather an obligation to pay under a contract.