Scribd
Upload
100 views

Dy Vs People

Dy was accused of estafa for failing to pay back loans used to purchase property. She was acquitted in criminal court for lack of proof that she misappropriated or converted the funds. However, the lower courts still ordered her to pay civil liability. The Supreme Court ruled this was erroneous, as without a crime proven, there can be no civil liability from a delict (tort). Any liability in this case would arise from contract instead, requiring a separate civil action. Mandatory fusion of civil and criminal actions does not apply to obligations from different sources, such as contract.

Uploaded by

MAC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100 views

Dy Vs People

Dy was accused of estafa for failing to pay back loans used to purchase property. She was acquitted in criminal court for lack of proof that she misappropriated or converted the funds. However, the lower courts still ordered her to pay civil liability. The Supreme Court ruled this was erroneous, as without a crime proven, there can be no civil liability from a delict (tort). Any liability in this case would arise from contract instead, requiring a separate civil action. Mandatory fusion of civil and criminal actions does not apply to obligations from different sources, such as contract.

Uploaded by

MAC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Dy vs People

Our law states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. This civil
liability ex delicto may be recovered through a civil action which, under our Rules of Court, is
deemed instituted with the criminal action. While they are actions mandatorily fused, they are, in
truth, separate actions whose existences are not dependent on each other. Thus, civil liability ex
delicto survives an acquittal in a criminal case for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the Rules of Court limits this mandatory fusion to a civil action for the recovery of civil
liability ex delicto. It, by no means, includes a civil liability arising from a different source of
obligation, as in the case of a contract. Where the civil liability is ex contractu, the court hearing
the criminal case has no authority to award damages.
Xxx

Dy was the former General Manager of MCCL. In the course of her employment, Dy assisted
MCCI in its business involving several properties. One such business pertained to the
construction of warehouses over a property (Numancia Property) that MCCI leased from the
Philippine National Bank (PNB).

In 1996, Dy proposed to the president of MCCI the purchase of a property owned by Pantranco.
As the transaction involved a large amount of money, the president agreed to obtain a loan from
a bank. As a security, a chattel mortgage was made over the warehouses in the Numancia
Property. The president entrusted Dy to make the loan payments.

Checks were delivered to the Dy for payment of the loan. These were not paid to the bank,
hence the property was foreclosed.

A criminal case for Estafa was filed against Dy.

The RTC of Manila rendered a decision acquitting Dy, however, it ordered the latter to pay the
amount of the checks.

Dy filed an appeal which was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this Petition for Review on
Certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the court erred in finding that there is civil liability in a criminal case
for estafa when the accused is acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements
of the crime charged.

Ruling:

The lower courts erred when they ordered petitioner to pay her civil obligation arising from a
contract of loan in the same criminal case where she was acquitted on the ground that there was
no crime.

Petitioner (Dy) was acquitted by the RTC Manila because of the absence of the element of
misappropriation or conversion. The RTC Manila, as affirmed by the CA, found that Mandy
delivered the checks to petitioner pursuant to a loan agreement. Clearly, there is no crime
of estafa. There is no proof of the presence of any act or omission constituting criminal fraud.
Thus, civil liability ex delicto cannot be awarded because there is no act or omission punished by
law which can serve as the source of obligation. Any civil liability arising from the loan takes the
nature of a civil liability ex contractu. It does not pertain to the civil action deemed instituted with
the criminal case.

In Manantan, this Court explained the effects of this result on the civil liability deemed instituted
with the criminal case. At the risk of repetition, Manantan held that when there is 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.” In Dy's case, the civil liability arises
out of contract—a different source of obligation apart from an act or omission punished by law—
and must be claimed in a separate civil action.

You might also like