Ching v. Nicdao

G.R. No. 141181 April 27, 2007 Nicdao’s acquittal is not merely based on reasonable doubt.
Rather, it is based on
the finding that she did not commit the act penalized under BP 22. The
SAMSON CHING, Petitioner, ₱20,000,000.00 check was a stolen check which was never issued nor delivered
vs. by Nicdao to Ching.
CLARITA NICDAO and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
2. NO.
FACTS:
It is admitted by Ching that said check in his possession was a blank check and
Ching instituted a criminal action for 11 counts of violation of BP 22 against Nicdao. was subsequently completed by him alone without authority from Nicdao.
After the trial, the MCTC rendered judgment convicting Nicdao which was affirmed in Inasmuch as check was incomplete and undelivered in the hands of Ching, he did
toto by the RTC. However, on appeal, Nicdao was acquitted of the crime charged. Hence, not acquire any right or interest therein and cannot, therefore, assert any cause of
the petition. action founded on said stolen check.
Nicdao contends that the CA did not commit serious misapprehension of facts when it 3. NO.
found that the check was stolen and that she never made any transaction with Ching. These
findings are allegedly supported by the evidence on record which consisted of the Nicdao’s civil liability to Ching representing her unpaid obligations to the latter
testimonies of the defense witnesses to the effect that Nicdao had a practice of leaving pre- has not been sufficiently established by preponderant evidence. Petitioner Ching
signed checks placed inside an unsecured cash box. Another indication that it was stolen mainly relies on his testimony before the MCTC to establish the existence of
was the fact that among all the checks which ended up in the hands of Ching, only the these unpaid obligations. As security for her obligations, she issued eleven (11)
P20M check was typewritten, the rest were invariably handwritten as to the amount, payee checks which were invariably blank as to the date, amounts and payee. When
and date. respondent Nicdao allegedly refused to pay her obligations despite his due
demand, petitioner filled up the checks in his possession with the corresponding
Considering that it was stolen, Nicdao argues that the P20M check was incomplete and amounts and date and deposited them in his account. They were subsequently
undelivered instrument in the hands of Ching and he did not acquire any right or interest dishonored by the HSLB for being "DAIF”.
therein. Further, he cannot assert any cause of action founded on the said stolen check.
Accordingly, Ching’s attempt to collect payment on the check through the petition must 4. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
fail. preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior
weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts
ISSUES: and circumstances of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are
1. WON Nicdao’s acquittal carries with it the extinction of his civil liability. testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or
2. WON Ching acquired right or interest in the instrument. improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their
3. WON Nicdao’s civil liability to Ching as regards unpaid obligations has been personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The
sufficiently proven by the latter. court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not
4. How is preponderance of evidence determined? necessarily with the greater number.
5. WON the interest could be properly collected in the transaction between Ching
and Nicdao. 5. NO.
HELD:
No interests could be properly collected in the loan transactions between Ching
and Nicdao because there was no stipulation therefor in writing. Under Article
1. YES. 1956 of the Civil Code, "no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly
stipulated in writing."
Nicdao’s acquittal likewise carried with it the extinction of the action to enforce
her civil liability. There is simply no basis to hold respondent Nicdao civilly
liable to Ching.

Ching v. Nicdao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ching v. Nicdao

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ching v. Nicdao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 141181 April 27, 2007 Nicdao’s acquittal is not merely based on reasonable doubt.

You might also like