Domingo v. Colina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Lucille Domingo was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) for issuing a UCPB Check No. 0014924 dated February 28, 1998, for P175,000.00, payable to respondent Merlinda Colina. The check was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank due to the account being closed. The Information alleged that Domingo issued the check knowing she had no sufficient funds or credit with the bank, causing damage and prejudice to Colina. Procedural History: The case was initially filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City. After the prosecution rested its case, the MTCC granted Domingo's demurrer to evidence on October 25, 2001, dismissing the case for failure to prove elements two and three of BP 22. The MTCC denied the prosecution's motion for reconsideration and its alternative prayer to reopen the civil aspect on November 23, 2001, stating that the act from which civil liability might arise did not exist. Respondent Colina appealed the civil aspect to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which modified the MTCC's decision on September 30, 2002, ordering Domingo to pay P175,000.00 plus interest. The RTC denied Domingo's motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in its August 12, 2005 decision and denied Domingo's motion for reconsideration on May 26, 2006. The Petition: Petitioner Domingo filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. She argued that the CA erred in upholding the RTC's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on the civil aspect, contending that the MTCC's ruling that the act giving rise to civil liability did not exist should have extinguished the civil action. Domingo also argued that the CA erred in denying her request to adduce evidence on the civil aspect, asserting she had not waived this right as the demurrer to evidence was filed with prior leave of court.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC and CA erred in entertaining the appeal on the civil aspect of the case despite the MTCC's dismissal of the criminal case. Whether petitioner was denied due process by not being allowed to present evidence on the civil aspect of the case.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction over the civil aspect: The Court held that the RTC and CA correctly entertained the appeal on the civil aspect. The MTCC's dismissal of the criminal case was based on the prosecution's failure to prove the elements of BP 22 beyond reasonable doubt, not on a definitive finding that the act from which civil liability might arise did not exist. The MTCC's subsequent statement that the act did not exist lacked factual basis and was merely a conclusion derived from the failure to prove the criminal elements. The Court emphasized that the extinction of the penal action does not necessarily carry with it the extinction of the civil action, unless there is a final judgment finding that the act or omission did not exist. In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the issuance of the check and its dishonor for insufficient funds, which are sufficient to give rise to civil liability, proven by a preponderance of evidence. The RTC correctly entertained the appeal on the civil aspect. On the issue of denial of due process: The Court found no denial of due process. Petitioner failed to raise the issue of her right to present evidence on the civil aspect before the RTC and CA. She only brought it up in her motion for reconsideration of the CA decision. The Court reiterated that a party is deemed to have waived a right if not invoked in due course. Petitioner had the opportunity to be heard and defend her interests throughout the proceedings, including obtaining a favorable judgment from the MTCC. Her failure to avail herself of all available remedies did not constitute a denial of due process. Furthermore, the rule that no question will be entertained on appeal unless raised in the lower courts was applied, estopping petitioner from raising this issue for the first time on appeal.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 based on the prosecution's failure to prove the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt does not automatically extinguish the civil liability arising from the issuance of the dishonored check, as the latter is governed by a different quantum of proof (preponderance of evidence).