December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 180628 : December 02, 2009] CICERO GARCIA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:
[G.R. No. 180628 : December 02, 2009]
CICERO GARCIA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 December 2009:
G.R. No. 180628 (Cicero Garcia v. People of the Philippines).
This petition seeks the review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated April 30, 2007[1] and June 13, 2007[2] in CA-G.R. CR 30110 which acquitted petitioner Cicero Garcia of the charge of violating Batas Pambansa (B.P.) 22 but nevertheless found him civilly liable to the complainant.
On February 2, 1999 complainant Federico S. Calilung filed two complaints against petitioner Garcia and his wife, Ma. Theresa, for Violation of B.P. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga. The prosecution evidence shows that on May 2, 1998, at San Fernando, Pampanga, Garcia and his wife issued for valuable consideration, two checks for P250,000.00 each in exchange for cash. When presented for payment, the drawee bank dishonored the checks due to insufficiency of funds. Despite demands, the spouses failed to pay. The complaint against Garcia's wife was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that her signature did not appear in any of the checks.
For his defense, petitioner Garcia narrated a different version. He alleged that Calilung hired him as his real estate broker to sell the Excellent Discovery Hotel for a commission. At that time, the hotel was leased to Emiliano D. Joven. For this reason, Garcia approached Joven to offer the property to him. In the course of negotiations, Garcia gave five checks to Calilung, totalling PI.5 million supposedly as Joven's earnest money for the purchase. Of the five checks, Calilung gave Garcia three checks worth P500,000.00 as supposed partial payment of the latter's commission.
But the sale did not push through. Consequently, Calilung told Garcia to return the P500,000.00 commission paid to him in advance. Calilung also filed a complaint for ejectment against Joven for non-payment of rentals although the parties had treated the remaining P1 million as advance payment of Joven's rental.
Garcia issued two checks in favor of Calilung by way of returning the commission he received in advance. But he told Calilung that he had to sign a motion to dismiss the ejectment suit he filed against Joven, otherwise, Calilung must return the checks to him (Garcia) so he can give the P500,000.00 back to Joven, the rightful owner. But Calilung deposited the subject checks and they were dishonored due to "stop payment" although Garcia did not have sufficient funds in the bank. Calilung did not comply with his promise to dismiss the ejectment case filed against Joven. Apparently, however, the checks were not issued in exchange for cash, that is why Calilung stated in his complaint-affidavit that these were issued for valuable consideration.[3]
The trial court convicted Garcia and directed him to indemnify Calilung in the amount of P250,000.00 in both cases. The appellate Regional Trial Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
On appeal, the CA acquitted Garcia but held him civilly liable for the value of the checks. Garcia filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied. The CA stressed that a judgment of acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil damages, since only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases. It likewise found the filing of a separate civil action unnecessary.
The issue presented is whether or not the prosecution failed to prove petitioner Garcia's civil liability by preponderance of evidence.
A check has the character of negotiability; at the same time, it is an evidence of indebtedness.[4] This Court does not believe Garcia's claim that he issued the checks without valuable consideration. The settled rule is that upon issuance of a check, it is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it was issued for valuable consideration, which may consist either in some right, interest, or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance or responsibility, on the part of the other side.[5]
Here, the prosecution also proved that Garcia received P500,000.00 from Calilung. Whether he got the amount as a loan or as an advance on his commission, Garcia issued the checks for a valuable consideration. For this reason, Garcia has an obligation to pay Calilung the amount since the alleged sale of the hotel did not materialize.
Garcia maintains that he did not have to return the amount since it really belonged to Joven not Calilung. But, if this were true, why did he not turn over the amount to Joven? Clearly, he was just making a flimsy excuse to save his neck. Since Garcia admitted that the money belongs to Joven, there is no reason to retain the same for himself.
The Court affirms the 12% interest that the Court of Appeals imposed on Garcia. In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[6] this Court ruled that when the obligation breached 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. In the absence of a stipulation, the rate shall be 12% per annum to be computed from judicial or extrajudicial demand subject to the provisions of the Civil Code.
Contrary to Garcia's assertion, his obligation unmistakably involves the payment of money, whether as settlement of a loan or as restitution of an advanced commission. There is therefore no justification for the imposition of a lower rate.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court DENIES the Petition for Review on Certiorari and AFFIRMS the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 2007 and June 13, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR30110.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2nd day of December, 2009.
G.R. No. 180628 (Cicero Garcia v. People of the Philippines).
This petition seeks the review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated April 30, 2007[1] and June 13, 2007[2] in CA-G.R. CR 30110 which acquitted petitioner Cicero Garcia of the charge of violating Batas Pambansa (B.P.) 22 but nevertheless found him civilly liable to the complainant.
On February 2, 1999 complainant Federico S. Calilung filed two complaints against petitioner Garcia and his wife, Ma. Theresa, for Violation of B.P. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga. The prosecution evidence shows that on May 2, 1998, at San Fernando, Pampanga, Garcia and his wife issued for valuable consideration, two checks for P250,000.00 each in exchange for cash. When presented for payment, the drawee bank dishonored the checks due to insufficiency of funds. Despite demands, the spouses failed to pay. The complaint against Garcia's wife was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that her signature did not appear in any of the checks.
For his defense, petitioner Garcia narrated a different version. He alleged that Calilung hired him as his real estate broker to sell the Excellent Discovery Hotel for a commission. At that time, the hotel was leased to Emiliano D. Joven. For this reason, Garcia approached Joven to offer the property to him. In the course of negotiations, Garcia gave five checks to Calilung, totalling PI.5 million supposedly as Joven's earnest money for the purchase. Of the five checks, Calilung gave Garcia three checks worth P500,000.00 as supposed partial payment of the latter's commission.
But the sale did not push through. Consequently, Calilung told Garcia to return the P500,000.00 commission paid to him in advance. Calilung also filed a complaint for ejectment against Joven for non-payment of rentals although the parties had treated the remaining P1 million as advance payment of Joven's rental.
Garcia issued two checks in favor of Calilung by way of returning the commission he received in advance. But he told Calilung that he had to sign a motion to dismiss the ejectment suit he filed against Joven, otherwise, Calilung must return the checks to him (Garcia) so he can give the P500,000.00 back to Joven, the rightful owner. But Calilung deposited the subject checks and they were dishonored due to "stop payment" although Garcia did not have sufficient funds in the bank. Calilung did not comply with his promise to dismiss the ejectment case filed against Joven. Apparently, however, the checks were not issued in exchange for cash, that is why Calilung stated in his complaint-affidavit that these were issued for valuable consideration.[3]
The trial court convicted Garcia and directed him to indemnify Calilung in the amount of P250,000.00 in both cases. The appellate Regional Trial Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
On appeal, the CA acquitted Garcia but held him civilly liable for the value of the checks. Garcia filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied. The CA stressed that a judgment of acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil damages, since only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases. It likewise found the filing of a separate civil action unnecessary.
The issue presented is whether or not the prosecution failed to prove petitioner Garcia's civil liability by preponderance of evidence.
A check has the character of negotiability; at the same time, it is an evidence of indebtedness.[4] This Court does not believe Garcia's claim that he issued the checks without valuable consideration. The settled rule is that upon issuance of a check, it is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it was issued for valuable consideration, which may consist either in some right, interest, or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance or responsibility, on the part of the other side.[5]
Here, the prosecution also proved that Garcia received P500,000.00 from Calilung. Whether he got the amount as a loan or as an advance on his commission, Garcia issued the checks for a valuable consideration. For this reason, Garcia has an obligation to pay Calilung the amount since the alleged sale of the hotel did not materialize.
Garcia maintains that he did not have to return the amount since it really belonged to Joven not Calilung. But, if this were true, why did he not turn over the amount to Joven? Clearly, he was just making a flimsy excuse to save his neck. Since Garcia admitted that the money belongs to Joven, there is no reason to retain the same for himself.
The Court affirms the 12% interest that the Court of Appeals imposed on Garcia. In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[6] this Court ruled that when the obligation breached 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. In the absence of a stipulation, the rate shall be 12% per annum to be computed from judicial or extrajudicial demand subject to the provisions of the Civil Code.
Contrary to Garcia's assertion, his obligation unmistakably involves the payment of money, whether as settlement of a loan or as restitution of an advanced commission. There is therefore no justification for the imposition of a lower rate.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court DENIES the Petition for Review on Certiorari and AFFIRMS the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 2007 and June 13, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR30110.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2nd day of December, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 32.
[2] Id. at 48.
[3] Id. at 84.
[4] Pacheco v. Court of Appeals, 377 Phil. 627, 637 (1999).
[5] Ongson v. People, G.R. No. 156169, August 12, 2005, 466 SCRA 656, 671.
[6] G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 95.
