Castillo vs Salvador

GR No. 191240,      July 30, 2014

CRISTINA B. CASTILLO vs. PHILLIP R. SALVADOR

Facts:

CRISTINA B. CASTILLO - Filed the instant petition on the civil aspect of the case alleging that even if the Court Of Appeals decided to acquit respondent it should have at least retained the award of damages to the petitioner.

-      It was alleged that respondent along with his brother proposed a remittance business with the petitioner.

-      The amount of US$100,000.00 was the capital which was raised by the petitioner. However, it was alleged that the respondent took the said amount to pay for all his obligations. Said amount was never returned to the petitioner.

PHILLIP R. SALVADOR - Charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. 

-      Denied the charges against him.

-      The Court ruled for his acquittal. Hence, this appeal by the petitioner.

Issue: WON the award of damages or the civil aspect of the case can be retained.

Held:

     The award of damages must be removed. Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the actor omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in Article 29 of the Civil Code, where the civil action for damages is “for the same act or omission.

      A reading of the CA decision would show that respondent was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

     In the present case, no such civil liability is proved even by preponderance of evidence.

     In discrediting petitioner’s allegation that she gave respondent US$100,000.00 in May 2002, the CA found that: (1) petitioner failed to show how she was able to raise the money in such a short period of time and even gave conflicting versions on the source of the same; (2) petitioner failed to require respondent to sign a receipt so she could have a record of the transaction and offered no plausible reason why the money was allegedly hand-carried to Hong Kong; (3) petitioner’s claim of trust as reason for not requiring respondent to sign a receipt was inconsistent with the way she conducted her previous transactions with him; and (4) petitioner’s behavior after the alleged fraud perpetrated against her was inconsistent with the actuation of someone who had been swindled.

The petition for the award of damages is denied.