196. HUN HYUNG PARK v EUNG WON CHOI civil aspect of the case continue.
G.R. No. 165496
February 12, 2007
Topic: Acquittal and Civil Liability
Petitioners: Hun Hyung Park
Respondents: Eung Won Choi
Ponente: J. Carpio Morales
FACTS
-Respondent, Eung Won Choi, was charged for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, for
issuing on June 28, 1999 Philippine National Bank Check No. 0077133
postdated August 28, 1999 in the amount of ₱1,875,000 which was
dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds.
-Upon arraignment, respondent, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded "not
guilty" to the offense charged. Following the pre-trial conference, the
prosecution presented its evidence-in-chief.
-After the prosecution rested its case, respondent filed a Motion for Leave
of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence to which he attached his
Demurrer, asserting that the prosecution failed to prove that he received the
notice of dishonor, hence, the presumption of the element of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds did not arise.
-MeTC: Granted the Demurrer and Dismissed the case,
-Petitioner appealed the civil aspect of the case to the RTC, contending that
the dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil aspect.
-RTC: Granted the appeal of petitioner and ordered respondent to pay him
the amount of ₱1,875,000 with legal interest. It held that while the evidence
presented was insufficient to prove respondent’s criminal liability, it did not
altogether extinguish his civil liability
-Upon respondent’s 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 respondent may adduce evidence on the civil aspect
of the case." Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the remand of the
case having been denied, he elevated the case to the CA.
-CA: Dismissed Petitioner’s MR.
Petitioner posits that respondent waived his right to present evidence
on the civil aspect of the case (1) when the grant of the demurrer was
reversed on appeal, and (2) when respondent orally opposed petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration pleading that proceedings with respect to the
ISSUE: Whether respondent has waived his right to present evidence on the
civil aspect of the case.
HELD
No. In case of acquittal, the accused may still be adjudged civilly liable. The
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the
civil action where (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the
liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused
does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was
acquitted.
In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused
may adduce countervailing evidence if the court denies the demurrer. Such
denial bears no distinction as to the two aspects of the case because there is
a disparity of evidentiary value between the quanta of evidence in such
aspects of the case. In other words, a court may not deny the demurrer as to
the criminal aspect and at the same time grant the demurrer as to the civil
aspect, for if the evidence so far presented is not insufficient to prove the
crime beyond reasonable doubt, then the same evidence is likewise not
insufficient to establish civil liability by mere preponderance of evidence.
On the other hand, 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 proceeds.
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.
Thus this Court, in Salazar v. People,35 held:
If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court, the accused
has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless the
court also declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability
may arise did not exist.
In this case, as for petitioner’s attribution of waiver to respondent, it cannot
be determined with certainty from the records the nature of the alleged oral
objections of respondent to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the
grant of the demurrer to evidence. Any waiver of the right to present
evidence must be positively demonstrated. Any ambiguity in the
voluntariness of the waiver is frowned upon, hence, courts must
indulge every reasonable presumption against it.

This Court therefore upholds respondent’s right to present evidence as

reserved by his filing of leave of court to file the demurrer

RATIO

WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions,

DENIED.
The case is REMANDED to the court of origin, Metropolitan Trial Court of
Makati City, Branch 65 which is DIRECTED to forthwith set Criminal Case
No. 294690 for further proceedings only for the purpose of receiving
evidence on the civil aspect of the case.
Costs against petitioner.