You are on page 1of 2

Sanchez v.

The original criminal action involves the prosecution of Sanchez for estafa or
swindling through falsification of commercial documents
Kai Chin is the director and representative of Chemical Bank. Its subsidiary,
Chemical International Finance Limited is an investor in Far East Bank and
Trust Co.
To represent CIFL, Chin was made a director and senior VP of FEBTC and
Josephine Sanchez is Chins secretary
FEBTC says that Sanchez made unauthorized withdrawals from the account of
CIFL in FEBTC using forged/falsified applications for cashiers checks that
would be deposited into her account and, once credited, would be withdrawn
by Sanchez to be misappropriated, for her personal benefit to the damage of
Sanchez allegedly employed 3 different modes in the perpetration of the crime
that each involved some kind of forgery of Chins signatures
Sanchez then confessed to Chin that she tampered with the CIFL account and
Chin referred the matter to the FEBTC audit division
All checks and the applications for their issuance were sent to the PNP Crime
Lab for examination: found all Chins signatures were good forgeries
FEBTC had to reimburse the CIFL account with P3,787,530.86
Sanchez denied the forgeries, asserting that the deposit into her account was
with the authority and under the instructions of Chin and that she withdrew the
money but turned the same over to Chin
Chin denied giving Sanchez authority, saying that she signed the documents
but he did not rebut the alleged turnover of the proceeds

o Found Chin gave Sanchez authority to transact matters concerning the
CIFL account
o Doubts integrity of the results of the PNP handwriting tests because
Chins contemporaneous signatures were not used and FEBTC,
having initiated the tests, used sample signatures of their own choice
o Also, the fraudulent transactions had been approved and allowed by
FEBTCs own officials despite apparent procedural infirmities yet
only Sanchez was indicted
o Prosecution failed to prove Sanchez culpability with moral certainty
o Denied MR by FEBTC, said Sanchez acquitted not based on
reasonable doubt but that she wasnt the author of the frauds
perpetrated thus no civil liability against her
o Granted FEBTC appeal
o Acquittal doesnt preclude recovery of civil indemnity based on
quasi-delict because the outcome is inconsequential to adjudge civil
liability from the same act that could also be a quasi-delict
o Sanchez was acquitted on reasonable doubt from the insufficiency of
the evidence to establish her as having perpetrated the crime and not
the nonexistence of the crime where civil liability could arise
o While forgery couldnt be proven, faulted Sanchez for failure to turn
over the proceeds to FEBTC an actionable fraud and thus ordered
her to pay actual damages for the checks in her name and account

1. Procedural: Did the judgment of conviction already become final when the
MR of the civil aspect of the case was filed by FEBTC? NO: The time for
filing the same should be counted from FEBTCs receipt of the decisions
2. What is the civil liability of Sanchez, if any, in light of her acquittal?
Art. 100, RPC: every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable except when no actual damage like espionage, violation
of neutrality, flight to enemy country, crime against popular
Extinction of criminal liability does not always carry with it the
extinction of civil liability
Art. 29, NCC: When the accused is acquitted on the ground that his
guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action
requires only a preponderance of evidence
An action for the recovery of civil liability is necessarily included in
the criminal proceedings unless:
o Express waiver
o Reservation
o Civil filed before criminal
Because none of the exceptions exist, the civil action was also
prosecuted in the criminal case so there can be no more separate civil
are two kinds of acquittal
1. Acquittal because the accused was not the author of the act or
omission complained of
No civil liability for the person found not to be the
perpetrator of the crime
Acquitted never be held liable for it: there being no
delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question
Civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be
based on grounds other than the delict complained of
2. Acquittal because guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt
Even if guilt not satisfactorily proven, no exemption
from civil liability, which is proven only by
preponderance of evidence
This is what is contemplated under Art. 29: the same act
or omission
Acquittal doesnt prevent judgment on civil aspect where:
1. Acquittal on reasonable doubt
2. Court declared accused liable civilly
3. Civil liability not based on crime for which accused was
Civil action based on delict is extinguished if there is a finding that
the act or omission from which civil liability may arise did not exist
or accused didnt commit the imputed acts or omissions
If the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt but the court renders
judgment on the civil aspect, prosecution cannot appeal from the
judgment of acquittal or else double jeopardy
Aggrieved/offended or accused or both may appeal from the judgment
on the civil aspect if the case within the period therefor ONLY in the
cases of 1, 2, 3 above
Because Sanchez was found not to have committed the crime
imputed, her acquittal extinguished the action for civil liability
There was no evidence on record that the money never turned over to
Kai Chan
Sanchez consistently claimed that she acted with authority, that even
if deposited in her account, she withdrew and turned value over the
Records dont show that she ever appropriated the money for her
personal gain
Kai Chin didnt rebut the statement as to turnover
Records show that Kai Chin did in fact give Sanchez authority
The issue of forgery wasnt successfully proven
RULE 111, SEC. 2(B) ROC: A finding in a final judgment that the
fact from which civil liability may arise does not exist carries with it
the extinction of the civil liability
Was the civil liability of Sanchez duly established? NO
o Sanchez was acquitted based on the fact that she hadnt
committed the offense imputed to her she cant be held
civilly liable