Salazar vs People, GR No.

151931, Sept 23, 2003

FACTS: Salazar was charged with the crime of Estafa, After the prosecution rested its case
upon the completion of their presentation of evidence, Salazar filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing
that she is a mere indorser of the subject check. Acting on the Demurrer, the RTC rendered
judgment acquitting Salazar of the crime charged but ordering her to remit to the private complainant
the amount of the check as payment for her purchase. The trial court ruled that the evidence for the
prosecution did not establish the existence of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt between the
petitioner and the issuer of the check, her co-accused Timario, for the purpose of defrauding the
private complainant. Salazar then filed an MR on the civil aspect of the decision, with a plea that he
be allowed to present evidence.

ISSUE: WoN the RTC correctly imposed civil liability on the accused.

HELD: NO. Under the Rules, after the prosecution has rested its case, the accused has the
option either to (a) file a demurrer to evidence with or without leave of court under Section 23, Rule
119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or to (b) adduce his evidence unless he waives the
same. 

In criminal cases, the demurrer to evidence partakes of the nature of a motion to dismiss the case
for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a case where the
accused files a demurrer to evidence without leave of court, he thereby waives his right to present
evidence and submits the case for decision on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution. On the
other hand, if the accused is granted leave to file a demurrer to evidence, he has the right to adduce
evidence not only on the criminal aspect but also on the civil aspect of the case if his demurrer is
denied by the court.

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. If the trial court issues an order or renders judgment
not only granting the demurrer to evidence of the accused and acquitting him but also on the civil
liability of the accused to the private offended party, said judgment on the civil aspect of the case
would be a nullity for the reason that the constitutional right of the accused to due process is thereby
violated.

WHEN ACQUITTAL IS NOT A BAR TO CLAIM CIVIL LIABILITY

The acquittal of the accused does not prevent a judgment against him on the civil aspect of the case
where (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required;
(b) where the court declared that the liability of the accused is only civil; (c) where the civil liability of
the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted.
Moreover, the civil action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a finding in the final judgment
in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or
where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.

If the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt but the court renders judgment on the civil aspect of
the criminal case, the prosecution cannot appeal from the judgment of acquittal as it would place the
accused in double jeopardy. However, the aggrieved party, the offended party or the accused or
both may appeal from the judgment on the civil aspect of the case within the period therefor.

DUAL PURPOSE OF A CRIMINAL ACTION

The criminal action has a dual purpose, namely, the punishment of the offender and indemnity to the
offended party. The dominant and primordial objective of the criminal action is the punishment of the
offender. The civil action is merely incidental to and consequent to the conviction of the accused.
The reason for this is that criminal actions are primarily intended to vindicate an outrage against the
sovereignty of the state and to impose the appropriate penalty for the vindication of the disturbance
to the social order caused by the offender. On the other hand, the action between the private
complainant and the accused is intended solely to indemnify the former. 

TWO (2) ACTIONS IN A CRIMINAL CASE

Unless the offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action, there are two actions involved in a criminal case.
The first is the criminal action for the punishment of the offender. The parties are the People of the
Philippines as the plaintiff and the accused. In a criminal action, the private complainant is merely a
witness for the State on the criminal aspect of the action. The second is the civil action arising from
the delict. The private complainant is the plaintiff and the accused is the defendant. There is a
merger of the trial of the two cases to avoid multiplicity of suits.