Salazar v.
People
G.R. No. 151931 | September 23, 2003 | Callejo, Sr., J.
Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari of Order of RTC Legazpi City
denying MR of decision of court on civil aspect and to allow her to present
evidence thereon.
Petitioners: Anamer Salazar
Respondents: People of the Philippines, J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corp.
Rule 111 of Rules of Criminal Procedure
DOCTRINE
Extinction of Penal Action does not carry with it extinction of Civil Action.
Relevant Provision
Rule 111. Section 1. Institution of Criminal and Civil Action.
xxx
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application
with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of
both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule
governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
FACTS
o Oct 15 1996
o Anamer Salazar purchased 300 Cavans of Rice from JY Brothers
Marketing Corporation, through Mr. Jerson Yao.
o Salazar gave Yao a Check drawn against Prudential Bank Legazpi
City dated Oct 15 1996 by one Nena Jaucian Timario of P214,000.
o Yao accepted the check upon Salazar’s assurance that it was a good
check.The cavans of rice were picked up the next day by Salazar.
o Yao presented check but it was dishonored because it was drawn
under Closed Account and Yao informed Salazar. Salazar then
replaced the check with a personal check drawn against Solid Bank
Legazpi. Yao presented Solid Bank Check for payment but was
however returned with word DAUD (Drawn Against Uncollected
Deposit).
o Jun 11 1997
o Information for Estafa was filed against Salazar and Timario with
RTC Legazpi.
o Salazar entered plea of not guilty upon arraignment and trial ensued.
o Salazar filed Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court alleging she
could not be guilty of the crime because:
(a) She was merely an indorser of the check issued by Timario and
Estafa penalizes only the issuer
(b) There is no sufficient evidence to prove that Salazar conspired
with Timario in order to defraud Yao
(c) Salazar replaced the first dishonored check with her personal
check but was unfortunately dishonored, not for insufficiency, but
for DAUD.
• This means the account had sufficient funds but they were
still restricted because the deposit had not yet cleared
o Nov 19 2001
o Trial Court Aquitted Salazar of Esfara but ordered her to remit
payment to Yao for the amount of the check issued by her.
o TC held that Prosecution Evidence does not establish existence
of conspiracy for the purpose of defrauding Yao. Moreover, Yao
admitted that he never met Timario, who remained at large.
o As mere indorser of the check, Salazar’s breach of Warranty that
check was good is not synonymous with fraudulent act of falsely
pretending to possess credit under Art 315(2)(d) on Estafa.
o Salazar filed a Motion for Reconsideration on Civil Aspect of the Decision
with plea that she be allowed to present evidence pursuant to Rule 33 of
the Rules of Court.
o Jan 14 2002 – Court Denied the Motion.
o Hence this petition.
o Salazar assails TC Orders and claims that:
o She was denied due process after her Demurrer to Evidence
was granted by TC as was not given opportunity to adduce
evidence to produce that she was not Civilly Liable to Yao.
o Salazar invokes applicability of Rule 33 of Rules of Civil
Procedure contending that before being adjudged liable to Yao
she should have been first accorded Procedural Relief granted
Rule 33
ISSUES
o W/N Salazar was denied due process as she was not given opportunity
to adduce evidence to prove not civilly liable to Yao – YES
RULING & RATIO
o Sec 1 Rule 111 provides that extinction of Penal Action does not carry
with it extinction of Civil Action. Civil Action based on delict shall be
deemed extinguished if there is finding in a Final Judgment in the
Criminal Action that the act or omission from which Civil Liability may
arise did not exist.
o Criminal Action has dual purpose – [Primary] punishment of offender,
[Incidental] indemnity of offended party.
o Criminal Action is intended to vindicate the outrage against the State
and impose penalty for vindication of disturbance to the social order
caused. On the other hand, Civil Action is intended solely to indemnify
the complainant.
Page 1 of 2
o There are 2 Actions in Criminal Case – Unless offended party
(a) Waives Civil Action or
(b) Reserves Right to Institute it separately or
(c) Institutes Civil Action prior to Criminal Action
o Prosecution presents evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
and to prove civil liability. Accused shall adduce its Evidence to both
Criminal and Civil Aspect after Prosecution has rested its case. Court
shall render judgment to Criminal and Civil Aspect at Conclusion of Trial.
o Rule – Acquittal of Accused does not prevent Judgment against him on
the Civil Aspect of the Case where:
(a) Acquittal is based on Reasonable Doubt as only Preponderance
of Evidence is Required
(b) Where Court declared Liability of Accused as only Civil
(c) Where Civil Liability of Accused not arise from or not based upon
Crime which he was Acquitted
o Civil Action based on Delict Extinguished if finding in Final Judgment in
Criminal Action that act or omission from which Civil Liability may arise
not exist or where Accused did not commit acts or omission imputed.
o If Accused is acquitted on Reasonable Doubt but Court renders
judgment on Civil Aspect then,
o Prosecution cannot appeal from judgment acquittal as it would
place the Accused in Double Jeopardy
o However (a) Offended Party or (b) Accused may appeal from judgment
on civil aspect within period.
o Accused has 2 options after Prosecution rested case:
(a) File Demurrer to Evidence with or without Leave of Court
(b) Adduce his Evidence unless he waives
o When accused files a Demurrer to Evidence he has not yet adduced
evidence both on Criminal and Civil.
o Salazar was charged with Estafa under Art 315 of RPC. Civil Action
arising from Delict impliedly instituted since (a) No Waiver (b) No
Reservation (c) Not file Civil before institution of Criminal Action. Court
rendered judgment on Civil Aspect before Salazar could Adduce
Evidence.
o Hence – Salazar was denied Right to Due Process

DISPOSITION
Petition is GRANTED. Orders dated are SET ASIDE AND NULLIFIED. The
Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City is hereby DIRECTED to set Criminal for
the continuation of trial for the reception of the evidenceinchief of the
petitioner on the civil aspect of the case and for the rebuttal evidence of the
private complainant and the surrebuttal evidence of the parties if they opt to
adduce any.

Page 2 of 2