Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > April 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 173025 : April 09, 2008] MANOLITO CRUZ V. EASTERN ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND EASTERN FILMS, INC.:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 09 April 2008:

G.R. No. 173025  Manolito Cruz v. Eastern Entertainment, Inc. and Eastern Films, Inc.

Two Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Criminal Cases No. 12770 and 12771) were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Taguig, Metro Manila against petitioner Manolito Cruz (Cruz) for issuing two dishonored checks to herein respondents, Eastern Entertainment, Inc. (EEI) and Eastern Films, Inc. (EFI).  The information in Criminal Case No. 12770 reads:

On or about or sometime in the month of December, 1996, in Taguig, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make or draw and issue to Eastern Entertainment, Inc., represented by Josie C. Derilo, to apply on account, the check described below:

Check No.: 0597598
Drawn Against: Bank of the Phil. Islands
In the amount of: P500,000.00
Dated/Postdated: January 30, 1997
Payable to: Eastern Entertainment

said accused, well knowing that at the time of issue, he did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the face amount of such check upon its presentment, which chekc when presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds" and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, the accused failed to pay said payee the face amount of said check or make arrangement for full payment within five (5) banking days after receiving notice.^[1]

That in Criminal Case No. 12771 reads:

On or about or sometime in the month of December, 1996, in Taguig, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make or draw and issue to Eastern Entertainment, Inc., represented by Josie C. Derilo, to apply on account, the check described below:

Check No.: 0597741
Drawn Against: Bank of the Phil. Islands
In the amount of: P250,000.00
Dated/Postdated: March 12, 1997
Payable to: Eastern Films

said accused, well knowing that at the time of issue, he did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the face amount of such check upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds" and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, the accused failed to pay said payee the face amount of said check or make arrangement for full payment within five (5) banking days after receiving notice.^[2]

The parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Facts,^[3] admitting the following:

1. That venue in the x x x criminal cases have been properly laid.
   
   
2. That accused issued for valuable consideration the following checks:
    

   (a)	Bank of the Philippine Islands Check No. 0597598 dated January 30, 1997 in the amount of Php500,000.00, payable to Eastern Entertainment.
   (b)	Bank of the Philippine Islands Check No. 0597741 dated March 12, 1997 in the amount of Php250,000.00, payable to Eastern Films.

   
   
3. That when said BPI Check No. 0597598 dated January 30, 1997 in the amount of Php500,000.00 was presented for payment on February 18, 1997, the said check was refused payment and dishonored by the drawee bank (BPI) for reason of Drawn Against Insufficient Funds (DAIF) because Current Account No. 0075-1789-99 belonging to the accused that covered said check has no sufficient funds to pay the said check.
   
   
4. That when said BPI Check No. 0597741 dated March 12, 1997 in the amount of Php250,000.00 was presented for payment on March 13, 1997, the said check was refused payment and dishonored by the drawee bank (BPI) for reason of Drawn Against Insufficient Funds (DAIF) because Current Account No. 0075-1789-99 belonging to the accused that covered said check has no sufficient funds to pay the said check.^[4]  (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
   

After the prosecution rested its case, Cruz filed a Motion [for] Leave of Court for Demurrer of Evidence^[5] and a Demurrer to Evidence,^[6] contending that the prosecution failed to establish that he was notified of the dishonor of his checks.^[7]  The MeTC granted the motion.^[8]

In a joint Decision in Criminal Cases 12770 and 12771 rendered on June 20, 2003, Branch 74 of the MeTC of Taguig acquitted Cruz for failure of the prosecution to establish the actual receipt by him of the demand letter allegedly sent to him.  The MeTC nevertheless found Cruz civilly liable.^[9]  The MeTC thus disposed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, for failure of the prosecution to present sufficient evidence and thus failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused MANOLITO CRUZ is hereby ACQUITTED of the two (2) counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 of which he is charged under the two (2) separate Informations filed in Criminal Case Nos. 12770 and 12771.

However, finding that he is still civilly liable to the complainant Eastern Entertainment Inc./Eastern Films, accused MANOLITO CRUZ is hereby directed to pay unto the said complainant the face values of BPI Check No. 0597598 dated January 30, 1007 in the amount of P500,000.00 and of BPI Check No. 0597741 dated March 12, 1997 in the amount of P250,000.00; to pay interests thereon to the complainant at the legal rate of 12% per annum to be reckoned from September 11, 1997, the date of the filing of the said separate Information[s], until the said amounts and interests had been fully paid; and to pay the costs of this suit.

SO ORDERED.^[10]  (Underscoring supplied)

On appeal by Cruz,^[11] Branch 67 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City reversed and set aside the trial court's decision finding Cruz's civilly liable.^[12]

EEI and EFI filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals^[13] which it granted, by Decision dated April 3, 2006^[14] upon the following disquisition:

In the MTC Decision, respondent was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  Said judgment of acquittal did not declare that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.  Hence, respondent is not exempt from his civil liability to petitioners as the prosecution was able to prove the same by preponderance of evidence, as well as by respondent's own admission.

x x x x

Hence, the acquittal of respondent on the ground of reasonable doubt does not exempt him from paying the face value of the dishonored checks which he admittedly issued to petitioners, plus 12% legal interest from 11 September 1997, the date of the filing of the Informations, until the amounts due are fully paid.

x x x x

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED DUE COURSE.  The Decision dated 11 March 2004 and the Order dated 02 September 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 67, in Criminal Cases Nos. 126224-25^[15] are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  The Decision dated 20 June 2003 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Taguig, Metro Manila, Branch 74, in Criminal Cases Nos. 12770-12771 is hereby REINSTATED.  Costs against respondent.

SO ORDERED.^[16]  (Emphasis in original; underscoring supplied)

His Motion for Reconsideration^[17] having been denied,^[18] Cruz (hereafter petitioner) filed the present Petition for Review,^[19] raising the following issues:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL LIABILITY IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 67[,] PASIG CITY IS IN ORDER?
   
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE RULING OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN RICO VS. PEOPLE^[20] IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE?^[21]
   

Petitioner argues:

x x x [T]he law is clear that respondent, as mandated by law, has five (5) days from actual notice of dishonor to make arrangements for the payment or settle the case.

The actual notice is a condition precedent for the filing of the case which included the civil case, and since the filing of the case was premature leading to the acquittal of the accused, the logical and natural consequence is the dismissal of the civil case because it was premature and not yet due and demandable.^[22]

x x x x

The ruling of RICO VS. PEOPLE is a misapplication and not based on the facts and the law applicable to this case.

The UNDISPUTED FACT and findings from the lower court to the Honorable Court of Appeals is the fact that accused/petitioner of this case DID NOT ACTUALLY OR PERSONALLY RECEIVED [SIC] THE DEMAND LETTER OF THE COMPLAINANT.

This fact is not the issue in the said ruling of x x x RICO VS. PEOPLE.  What was discussed in the said ruling is that the complainant was able to establish the civil liability which is also apparent in this case.

x x x x

The x x x real issue x x x is to give the accused the opportunity to pay the amount of the check because of his failure to receive personally and actually the demand letter made by the complainant.^[23]  (Capitalization in original)

To the petition respondents filed their Comment^[24] which merited petitioner's Reply.^[25]

As highlighted above, petitioner admittedly issued the subject checks for valuable consideration but were dishonored on presentment for payment for lack of sufficient funds.  Given that, vis a vis the lack of declaration in the trial court's decision that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist, the appellate court did not err in reversing the RTC and reinstating the trial court's decision.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] MTC records, p. 1.

^[2] Id. at 4.

^[3] Id. at 103-104.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Id. at 118-119.

^[6] Id. at 120-122.

^[7] Id. at 118-122.

^[8] Id. at 161.

^[9] Id. at 187-190 (citations omitted).

^[10] Id. at 189-190 (citations omitted).

^[11] Id. at 193.

^[12] Records, pp. 60.

^[13] CA rollo, pp. 9-29.

^[14] Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with the concurrences of Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Lucas P. Bersamin.  Id. at 172-191.

^[15] The criminal cases were renumbered before the RTC.  Vide records, pp. 1, 57.

^[16] CA  rollo, pp. 187-190.

^[17] Id. at 194-199.

^[18] Id. at 205-206.

^[19] Rollo, pp. 9-21.

^[20] G.R. No. 137191, November 18, 2002, 392 SCRA 61.

^[21] Rollo, p. 14.

^[22]  Id. at 15.

^[23] Id. at 17-19.

^[24] Id. at 93.

^[25] Id. at 106.