RECOVER

YOUR MONEY
By: Atty. Karissa Faye R. Tolentino
In general, when a person issues a rubber check or a bounced check, he may be held
liable for Estafa or violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) commonly known as
The Bouncing Check Law or both. What if the Estafa and BP22 cases were
dismissed? Can the victim still recover?
This is a case wherein spouses Winston and Elenita filed a case for Estafa and BP22
against Leonora. They accused Leonora of enticing them to invest their money in
Multitel Corporation with an assurance that it would earn 8% monthly interest. To get
the spouses to sign an investment contract with Multitel Corporation, Leonora assured
them that the bank will issue postdated checks in payment of their investments.
Awaiting the checks of the corporation, Leonora issued to them a personal postdated
check amounting to PhP500,000.00.
When the check of Leonora became due, the spouses cashed it. However, the bank
dishonored the check because it has insufficient funds. Despite demand, Leonora
failed to replace the checks with cash. Consequently, spouses Winston and Elenita
filed against Leonora cases for Estafa and for violation of BP 22. Leonora was not
found guilty.
Can Leonora be held liable to pay the value of the check even she was not found guilty
of Estafa or violation of BP 22? Yes. Leonora can be held liable to pay the value of the
check she issued to spouses Winston and Elenita.
Under the Rules of Court, if spouses Winston and Elenita want to recover the money
value of the check issued by Leonora, they need not file a separate civil case, the civil
claim is deemed incorporated in the criminal case. Thus, the Court may release the
accused Leonora from any criminal liability, but may find her liable to pay for damages
to the spouses.
The Supreme Court ruled that Leonoras liability to pay the value of the check did not
arise from the crime of Estafa because it was found that Leonora did not employ deceit
in enticing the spouses to invest in Multitel Corporation. Rather, her liability to pay for
the value of the check was because she acted as an accommodation party to Multitel
Corporation. She, in effect, assured the spouses that if Multitel Corporation cannot pay
them, she assured them of payment by issuing her personal check. Again, Leonoras
civil liability to Spouses Winston and Elenita did not arise from or was not based on the
crime she was charged with, but from her assurance of payment by issuing her own
personal check. (Rimado v. Spouses Aldaba, et. al., G.R. No. 203583, October 13,
2014)