Hun Hyung Park v.

Eun Wong Choi

Facts:

Respondent Eun Wong Choi (Choi), was charged for violation of BP Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing
Checks Law, for issuing a post-dated Philippine National Bank Check in the amount of P1,875,000.00 which
was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds.

Upon arraignment, Choi pleaded "not guilty" to the offense charged. After the prosecution rested its case, he
filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence. In his Demurrer, Choi asserted 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. The MeTC granted the Demurrer and dismissed the case.

Petitioner Hun Hyung Park (Park) appealed the civil aspect of the case to the RTC, contending that the
dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil aspect.

A. Ruling of the RTC:

The RTC granted the petitioner's appeal. It held that while the evidence presented was insufficient to prove
respondent’s criminal liability, it did not altogether extinguish his civil liability. However, upon respondent's
motion for reconsideration, the RTC set aside its earlier decision and remanded the case to the MeTC for
further proceedings.

Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration of the remand of the case, but the same was denied.

B. Ruling of the CA:

The CA dismissed the petition. It found the following: (1) that the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping attached to the petition does not comply with Sec. 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court as it does not
assure that the allegations are true based on authentic records; (2) that the petition was not accompanied by
copies of certain pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the
petition; (3) that the decision of the RTC attached to the petition is mere machine copy; and (4) that
petitioner failed to implead the People of the Philippines as party-respondent in the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the People of the Philippines should be impleaded when appealing the civil aspect of
the
case?

Ruling: No, failure to implead the People of the Philippines as party in the petition is of no moment, as
petitioner appealed only the civil aspect of the 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.

The MeTC acquitted respondent. As a rule, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and the
prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

1
Digest-maker (Garcia, A.R.G.)
Either the offended party or the accused may, however, appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the
acquittal of the accused. The public prosecutor has generally no interest in appealing the civil aspect of a
decision acquitting the accused. The acquittal ends his work. The case is terminated as far as he is concerned.
The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the offended party and the accused.

Technicality aside, the petition is devoid of merit.

When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the whole case is submitted for judgment on the
basis of the evidence for the prosecution as the accused is deemed to have waived the right to present
evidence. At that juncture, the court is called upon to decide the case including its civil aspect, unless the
enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been waived or reserved.

If the filing of a separate civil action has not been reserved or priorly instituted or the enforcement of civil
liability is not waived, the trial court should, in case of conviction, state the civil liability or damages caused by
the wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any.

For, 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.

The civil action based on delict may, however, be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the final
judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

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, 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 the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case without any finding that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

Respondent did not assail the RTC order of remand. He thereby recognized that there is basis for a remand.
Hence, the petition is denied.

2
Digest-maker (Garcia, A.R.G.)