CHECK AS AN EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS

LIM VS. MINDANAO WINES AND LIQUOR GALLERIA

G.R. No. 175851, July 4, 2012
Del Castillo, J.:

DOCTRINE:
It is well to remember that a check may be evidence of indebtedness. A check, the entries of which are in
writing could prove a loan transaction.

FACTS:
A sales invoice and statement of account indicate that respondent Mindanao Wines and Liquor Galleria
delivered several cases of liquors to H & E Commercial owned by petitioner Emilia for which the latter
issued four Philippine National Bank (PNB) postdated checks worth P25, 000 each.

Two of the PNB postdated checks bounced for the reasons “Account Closed” and “Drawn Against
Insufficient Funds”. Respondent Mindanao Wines demanded the payment for these check but the request
was left unheeded. Finally, respondent sent a demand letter to petitioner, evidence of receipt of the same is
apparent in the signature of petitioner.

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities ruled and dismissed the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 filed
by respondent. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish and prove beyond whisper of doubt
an essential element that consummates the crime under B.P. 22 which is the fact of dishonor of the two
subject checks. The court noted that no bank representative was presented to prove the dishonor of the
checks.

Displeased with her acquittal, the petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court and prayed that the civil
liability attached to her case be exonerated based on her acquittal from her criminal charge. The RTC
dismissed the petitioner’s plea on the ground that although the criminal case was dismissed based on
reasonable doubt, the indebtedness was nonetheless proved by preponderance of evidence.

Undeterred, petitioner appealed with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court likewise dismissed
petitioners plea based on the same ground ratiocinated by the trial courts above. Hence the petition.

ISSUE:
Is the civil liability attached to the criminal case extinguished by the dismissal of the same?

HELD:
No. The civil liability stands as the same is proved by preponderance of evidence.

“The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where the
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required” in civil cases. (Alferez
v. People of the Philippines, 641 SCRA 116). Moreover, “it is well to remember that a check may be
evidence of indebtedness. A check, the entries of which are in writing, could prove a loan transaction.”
(Gaw v. Chua, 551 SCRA 505). While Emilia is acquitted of violations of BP 22, she should nevertheless
pay the debt she owes.