United Laboratories Inc.

vs Ernesto Isip

GR NO. 163858 June 28, 2005

Justice Callejo Sr.

(Executive Summary)

ISSUE :

Whether or not the taking of the boxes that contained Disudrin syrup and Inoflox are valid under the plain
view doctrine.

RULING:

No. The plain view doctrine does not apply to the boxes seized therein. In the case at bar, the boxes that
contained Disudrin syrup and Inoflox are not included in the items listed in the search warrant. Seized
items not included in the search warrant cannot be presumed as plain view. The following elements must
be present for the plain view doctrine to apply:

a. The executing law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an initial intrusion or otherwise
properly in a position from which he can view a particular order.
b. The officer must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently.
c. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a
crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.

PEOPLE VS BAYOTAS

GR NO. 102007 September 2, 1994

Justice Romero

(Digest Proper)
FACTS:

In Criminal Case No. C-3217 filed before Branch 16, RTC Roxas City, Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was
charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof on June 19, 1991 in a decision penned by Judge
Manuel E. Autajay. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died on February 4, 1992 at the National
Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepatic encephalopathy secondary to hipato
carcinoma gastric malingering. Consequently, the Supreme Court in its Resolution of May 20, 1992
dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. However, it required the Solicitor General to file its comment
with regard to Bayotas' civil liability arising from his commission of the offense charged.

In his comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view that the death of accused-appellant did not
extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense charged. The Solicitor General,
relying on the case of People v. Sendaydiego] insists that the appeal should still be resolved for the
purpose of reviewing his conviction by the lower court on which the civil liability is based.

Counsel for the accused-appellant, on the other hand, opposed the view of the Solicitor General arguing
that the death of the accused while judgment of conviction is pending appeal extinguishes both his
criminal and civil penalties. In support of his position the counsel brought up the case of People vs
Castillo which held that the civil obligation in a criminal case takes root in the criminal liability and,
therefore, civil liability is extinguished if accused should die before final judgment is rendered.

We are thus confronted with a single issue: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
extinguish his civil liability?

Q:Whether or not the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability.

A:

The Court decided on this case through stating the cases of Castillo and Sendaydiego. In

the Castillo case, the Court said that civil liability is extinguished only when death of the
accused occurred before the final judgement. Judge Kapunan further stated that civil liability is
extinguished because there will be “no party defendant” in the case. There will be no civil  liability if
criminal liability does not exist. Further, the Court stated “it is, thus, evident that… the rule established
was that the survival of the civil liability depends on whether the same can be predicated on the sources
of obligations other than delict.

In the Sendaydiego case, the Court issued Resolution of July 8, 1977 where it states that civil  liability will
only survive if death came after the final judgement of the CFI of Pangasinan. However, Article 30 of the
Civil Code could not possibly lend support to the ruling in Sendaydiego. Civil liability ex delicto is
extinguished by the death of the accused while his conviction is on appeal. The Court also gave a
summary on which cases should civil liability be extinguished, to wit:
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the
civil liability based solely thereon. Therefore, Bayotas’s death extinguished his criminal and
civil liability based solely on the act complained of.

PEOPLE VS MASCARINAS

GR NO. 144034 (May28, 2002)

Justice Bellosillo

(Digest Proper)

FACTS:

Found guilty of raping his nine (9)-year old daughter and sentenced to death by the court a quo as well as
to indemnify his victim P75,000.00, accused-appellant Mario Mascariñas now comes to us still insisting on
his innocence.

Private complainant Maries Mascariñas testified that at the time of the rape she lived with her family of
seven in a tiny shack in Suarez, Iligan City. She claimed that it was in this one room hut where she was
first molested by her father, accused-appellant Mario Mascariñas. She narrated that when she was nine
her father placed his finger inside her vagina. Appalled by what her father did, she left home and sought
shelter in the house of a neighbor. Her mother though fetched her and took her back home. Complainant
also alleged that she was molested and raped multiple times by here father. Mascarinas, in this case, is
contesting that he his penalty should be deducted since the complainant failed to provide her exact age
she filed against him.

Q1:

Whether or not the Information filed against the accused is valid, even if the age stated in the said
information failed to allege the exact age of the offended party during the time of the rape.

Q2:

Whether or not accused is guilty of incestuous rape

A1: The court held that the allegation in the Information that Maries was his minor daughter is as a
matter of law insufficient to alert him as to the exact nature of the rape imputed to him. To do so
would be to allege a conclusion of law to which the plea of not guilty joins no issue. Its effect is the
same as alleging negligence without specifying the facts constituting such want of care or prudence.
In the instant case, the exact age of the victim should have been asserted. Furthermore, the term
minority is too technical to satisfy the pleading requirement that acts alleged as crime must be
averred in a manner that a person of common understanding would understand the offense being
charged. Certainly stating the words fifteen (15) years old, for example, in the information would
signify something more familiar than the word minority could achieve.

A2: Yes, The state policy on incestuous rape is clear and unmistakable — life is to be made forfeit
under certain circumstances. Thus, under par. (1), Art. 335, of The Revised Penal Code, 11 the
penalty of death shall be imposed when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
 IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS vs

GR NO. 182132 (May28, 2013)

Justice Perlas- Bernabe

(Executive Summary)

FACTS:

Petitioners alleged that at around midnight of December 28, 2001, respondent Gil Anthony Calianga (Gil)
called petitioner Iris Kristine Alberto (Iris), then sixteen (16) years old, informing her that he was at their
garage with some food and drinks. For fear of being scolded, Iris refused to see Gil. But due to his
insistence, Iris finally went out to meet Gil and thereafter, took the food and drinks which he brought.
Eventually, while they were talking, Iris felt weak and dizzy and thus, tried to return to her room. Gil
assisted Iris and when they reached the room, he laid her on the bed. A little later, Gil started kissing Iris
which prompted her to scream. Consequently, Gil covered Iris’ mouth with a pillow and soon after, he
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Before leaving, Gil warned Iris not to tell anyone about
what happened.

As for the second set of incidents, petitioners claimed that on April 23, 2002, Gil called Iris, then
seventeen (17) years old, telling her that he would pick her up for them to go to church in order to play
volleyball. They met at about 5:30 in the afternoon in South Green Heights and proceeded to Camella to
meet Gil’s sister, respondent Jessebel Calianga (Jessebel), and her friend, respondent Grace Evangelista
(Grace). At around 6:30 in the evening, Gil and Iris boarded a tricycle. At the outset, Iris thought they
would be going to church for volleyball practice; but instead, Gil, while poking a knife at Iris’ side, told her
that they were headed to a different destination. Eventually, they reached a McDonald’s restaurant
located in San Pedro, Laguna where they transferred to a car driven by Grace’s common- law husband.
They then returned to Camella and stayed with a relative of Grace where they had dinner. While having
dinner, Iris overheard respondent Atty. Rodrigo Reyna (Atty. Reyna) giving instructions to Jessebel to
take Iris to Marikina City. When they finished their dinner, Atty. Reyna called again and told Iris not to go
out as her relatives were around the area, on board several cars. Iris pleaded Gil to let her go, but her
pleas were ignored. A little later, Jessebel and Grace led Gil and Iris to a tree house where Gil forced her
to enter a room. She tried to resist but he threatened to kill her if she did not accede. Left with no option,
Iris entered the room where Gil, holding her at knifepoint, succeeded in once again having sexual
intercourse with her. The following day, or on April 24, 2002, at around 6:00 in the morning, Atty. Reyna
arrived and instructed Iris to tell her relatives, who had been worriedly looking for her, that she voluntarily
went with Gil; that she was treated with kindness; and that everything that happened was to her own liking
because of her love for Gil. Atty. Reyna then asked Iris to go home but she refused because she did not
know her way back. Because of Iris’ refusal, Atty. Reyna called up her Auntie Vilma and Uncle Albert and
agreed to meet at Chowking-Poblacion where Iris was finally released to her grandfather, petitioner
Benjamin Balois (Benjamin).15

In defense, respondents maintained that on April 23, 2002, Iris’ brother, Eldon Alberto (Eldon), caught Gil
inside Iris’ bedroom where he had spent the night. Fearing the consequences of having been caught, Gil
and Iris eloped and stayed at the house of Grace’s grandfather. When Benjamin realized that Iris was
missing, he sought the help of Atty. Reyna, since he was a family friend from their church. Iris’ relatives
also suspected that she might be with Gil after learning from the entries in her journal that Iris loved Gil
very much. Coincidentally, Gil was the nephew of Atty. Reyna’s wife and so they were hoping that Atty.
Reyna would have some information as to Gil’s whereabouts. Atty. Reyna and the Balois family searched
together for Iris that night. In the course thereof, Atty. Reyna called Jessebel and Grace to ask if they
knew where Gil was. Both stated that they were in Marikina but denied having any knowledge about Gil’s
location. Later, the party tried to search Gil’s house as well as Grace’s place (the latter being referred to
as the “tree house
In the morning of April 24, 2002, Atty. Reyna proceeded to look for Grace and again asked where Gil and
Iris were. Eventually, Grace admitted that the two were at her grandfather’s house, which was only
around 30 minutes away from her place. They proceeded accordingly and there, found Iris and Gil who
were both surprised to see Atty. Reyna. Subsequently, Atty. Reyna asked Iris why she left home and she
answered that it was because of her brother Eldon’s warning that her family knew everything about her
relationship with Gil. Atty. Reyna confirmed the veracity of Eldon’s statement and went on to advise Iris to
just tell the truth. Iris heeded Atty. Reyna’s advice, allowing him to contact the Baloises and arrange for
her return. As it turned out, they agreed to meet at Chowking-Poblacion for such purpose.

In view of the incidents that transpired on December 28, 2001 and April 23 to 24, 2002, Benjamin filed a
criminal complaint for Rape, Serious Illegal Detention and Child Abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of
RA 7610 against Gil, Atty. Reyna, Jessebel and Grace before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Muntinlupa

On June 27, 2003, Gil, with the help of two men, brought Iris to Cagayan de Oro City and there, held her
captive in a small room with a small mat, near a pigpen. They controlled her movements, such as when
she would eat, sleep, bathe or use the toilet. Gil raped her almost every day even during her menstrual
period and would beat her up whenever she resisted. Also, Gil often told Iris that he would have her entire
relatives.

Disputing petitioners’ allegations, respondents denied that Gil, Atty. Reyna and Arturo abducted Iris and
instead, claimed that Gil and Iris eloped for the second time, after visiting the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Muntinlupa City where Iris declared that the charges against respondents were all fabricated by her
grandfather, Benjamin, and that she wanted them dismissed. Respondents claimed that Iris was quite
prepared during her second elopement with Gil as she brought with her three bags containing several
personal effects and other relevant documents. Eventually, Iris’ family would discover that the reason for
her elopement with Gil was because she was being maltreated and physically abused by her grandfather,
Benjamin. Moreover, Iris could no longer stomach the lies Benjamin wanted her to say about Gil. 20

Subsequently, Benjamin filed a second complaint against Gil, Atty. Reyna and Arturo for Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention, Grave Coercion and Obstruction of Justice before the Office of the City
Prosecutor Makati.

On July 9, 2003, the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa City dismissed the charges against Gil, Atty. Reyna,
Jessebel and Grace for Rape and Serious Illegal Detention in I.S. No. 02-G-03020-22 for insufficiency of
evidence. However, having found that he had sexual intercourse with a minor, Gil was charged for Child
Abuse.
Determined to face the charges against him, Gil, together with Iris, returned from Cagayan de Oro City to
Manila.On August 6, 2003, Iris executed an affidavit (August 6, 2003 affidavit), sworn before Makati
Assistant City Prosecutor George de Joya (Pros. de Joya), denying that she was kidnapped, detained or
raped by Gil. She also affirmed that she loved Gil and eloped with him. 24

On August 13, 2003, Iris and Gil appeared together on the GMA-7 television network’s Frontpage news
segment “Magkasintahan Pala” where Iris publicly declared that she loved Gil and that she went with him
freely. On November 9, 2003, Benjamin forcibly took Iris away from Gil as the two were going to church.
He subsequently kept Iris incommunicado for days and then had her declare through radio, newspaper
and television that she was kidnapped and raped by Gil and his family. While in the company of her
relatives, Iris was able to sneak out text messages to Gil using the cellular phone of her grandfather,
expressing her deep love and concern for him and warning his family about Benjamin’s plans against
them.28

On December 15, 2003, Iris, assisted by members of the groups Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption and Gabriela, proceeded to the DOJ Task Force on Women and Children Protection (DOJ
Task Force) and filed a third complaint against Gil for Forcible Abduction with Rape and Obstruction of
Justice, punished under Presidential Decree No. 1829,

Q: W/N CA erred in revoking DOJ resolutions in this case.

A: No. It is well-settled that courts of law are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors
and the DOJ on the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the purpose of filing criminal
information, unless such findings are tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. The rationale behind the general rule rests on the principle of separation of powers,
dictating that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of indicting a suspect is properly an
executive function; while the exception hinges on the limiting principle of checks and balances, whereby
the judiciary, through a special civil action of certiorari, has been tasked by the present Constitution "to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
 IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS vs

GR NO. 182132 (May28, 2013)

Justice Perlas- Bernabe

(Executive Summary)

FACTS:

Petitioners alleged that at around midnight of December 28, 2001, respondent Gil Anthony Calianga (Gil)
called petitioner Iris Kristine Alberto (Iris), then sixteen (16) years old, informing her that he was at their
garage with some food and drinks. For fear of being scolded, Iris refused to see Gil. But due to his
insistence, Iris finally went out to meet Gil and thereafter, took the food and drinks which he brought.
Eventually, while they were talking, Iris felt weak and dizzy and thus, tried to return to her room. Gil
assisted Iris and when they reached the room, he laid her on the bed. A little later, Gil started kissing Iris
which prompted her to scream. Consequently, Gil covered Iris’ mouth with a pillow and soon after, he
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Before leaving, Gil warned Iris not to tell anyone about
what happened.

As for the second set of incidents, petitioners claimed that on April 23, 2002, Gil called Iris, then
seventeen (17) years old, telling her that he would pick her up for them to go to church in order to play
volleyball. They met at about 5:30 in the afternoon in South Green Heights and proceeded to Camella to
meet Gil’s sister, respondent Jessebel Calianga (Jessebel), and her friend, respondent Grace Evangelista
(Grace). At around 6:30 in the evening, Gil and Iris boarded a tricycle. At the outset, Iris thought they
would be going to church for volleyball practice; but instead, Gil, while poking a knife at Iris’ side, told her
that they were headed to a different destination. Eventually, they reached a McDonald’s restaurant
located in San Pedro, Laguna where they transferred to a car driven by Grace’s common- law husband.
They then returned to Camella and stayed with a relative of Grace where they had dinner. While having
dinner, Iris overheard respondent Atty. Rodrigo Reyna (Atty. Reyna) giving instructions to Jessebel to
take Iris to Marikina City. When they finished their dinner, Atty. Reyna called again and told Iris not to go
out as her relatives were around the area, on board several cars. Iris pleaded Gil to let her go, but her
pleas were ignored. A little later, Jessebel and Grace led Gil and Iris to a tree house where Gil forced her
to enter a room. She tried to resist but he threatened to kill her if she did not accede. Left with no option,
Iris entered the room where Gil, holding her at knifepoint, succeeded in once again having sexual
intercourse with her. The following day, or on April 24, 2002, at around 6:00 in the morning, Atty. Reyna
arrived and instructed Iris to tell her relatives, who had been worriedly looking for her, that she voluntarily
went with Gil; that she was treated with kindness; and that everything that happened was to her own liking
because of her love for Gil. Atty. Reyna then asked Iris to go home but she refused because she did not
know her way back. Because of Iris’ refusal, Atty. Reyna called up her Auntie Vilma and Uncle Albert and
agreed to meet at Chowking-Poblacion where Iris was finally released to her grandfather, petitioner
Benjamin Balois (Benjamin).15

In defense, respondents maintained that on April 23, 2002, Iris’ brother, Eldon Alberto (Eldon), caught Gil
inside Iris’ bedroom where he had spent the night. Fearing the consequences of having been caught, Gil
and Iris eloped and stayed at the house of Grace’s grandfather. When Benjamin realized that Iris was
missing, he sought the help of Atty. Reyna, since he was a family friend from their church. Iris’ relatives
also suspected that she might be with Gil after learning from the entries in her journal that Iris loved Gil
very much. Coincidentally, Gil was the nephew of Atty. Reyna’s wife and so they were hoping that Atty.
Reyna would have some information as to Gil’s whereabouts. Atty. Reyna and the Balois family searched
together for Iris that night. In the course thereof, Atty. Reyna called Jessebel and Grace to ask if they
knew where Gil was. Both stated that they were in Marikina but denied having any knowledge about Gil’s
location. Later, the party tried to search Gil’s house as well as Grace’s place (the latter being referred to
as the “tree house
In the morning of April 24, 2002, Atty. Reyna proceeded to look for Grace and again asked where Gil and
Iris were. Eventually, Grace admitted that the two were at her grandfather’s house, which was only
around 30 minutes away from her place. They proceeded accordingly and there, found Iris and Gil who
were both surprised to see Atty. Reyna. Subsequently, Atty. Reyna asked Iris why she left home and she
answered that it was because of her brother Eldon’s warning that her family knew everything about her
relationship with Gil. Atty. Reyna confirmed the veracity of Eldon’s statement and went on to advise Iris to
just tell the truth. Iris heeded Atty. Reyna’s advice, allowing him to contact the Baloises and arrange for
her return. As it turned out, they agreed to meet at Chowking-Poblacion for such purpose.

In view of the incidents that transpired on December 28, 2001 and April 23 to 24, 2002, Benjamin filed a
criminal complaint for Rape, Serious Illegal Detention and Child Abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of
RA 7610 against Gil, Atty. Reyna, Jessebel and Grace before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Muntinlupa

On June 27, 2003, Gil, with the help of two men, brought Iris to Cagayan de Oro City and there, held her
captive in a small room with a small mat, near a pigpen. They controlled her movements, such as when
she would eat, sleep, bathe or use the toilet. Gil raped her almost every day even during her menstrual
period and would beat her up whenever she resisted. Also, Gil often told Iris that he would have her entire
relatives.

Disputing petitioners’ allegations, respondents denied that Gil, Atty. Reyna and Arturo abducted Iris and
instead, claimed that Gil and Iris eloped for the second time, after visiting the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Muntinlupa City where Iris declared that the charges against respondents were all fabricated by her
grandfather, Benjamin, and that she wanted them dismissed. Respondents claimed that Iris was quite
prepared during her second elopement with Gil as she brought with her three bags containing several
personal effects and other relevant documents. Eventually, Iris’ family would discover that the reason for
her elopement with Gil was because she was being maltreated and physically abused by her grandfather,
Benjamin. Moreover, Iris could no longer stomach the lies Benjamin wanted her to say about Gil. 20

Subsequently, Benjamin filed a second complaint against Gil, Atty. Reyna and Arturo for Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention, Grave Coercion and Obstruction of Justice before the Office of the City
Prosecutor Makati.

On July 9, 2003, the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa City dismissed the charges against Gil, Atty. Reyna,
Jessebel and Grace for Rape and Serious Illegal Detention in I.S. No. 02-G-03020-22 for insufficiency of
evidence. However, having found that he had sexual intercourse with a minor, Gil was charged for Child
Abuse.
Determined to face the charges against him, Gil, together with Iris, returned from Cagayan de Oro City to
Manila.On August 6, 2003, Iris executed an affidavit (August 6, 2003 affidavit), sworn before Makati
Assistant City Prosecutor George de Joya (Pros. de Joya), denying that she was kidnapped, detained or
raped by Gil. She also affirmed that she loved Gil and eloped with him. 24
On August 13, 2003, Iris and Gil appeared together on the GMA-7 television network’s Frontpage news
segment “Magkasintahan Pala” where Iris publicly declared that she loved Gil and that she went with him
freely. On November 9, 2003, Benjamin forcibly took Iris away from Gil as the two were going to church.
He subsequently kept Iris incommunicado for days and then had her declare through radio, newspaper
and television that she was kidnapped and raped by Gil and his family. While in the company of her
relatives, Iris was able to sneak out text messages to Gil using the cellular phone of her grandfather,
expressing her deep love and concern for him and warning his family about Benjamin’s plans against
them.28
On December 15, 2003, Iris, assisted by members of the groups Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption and Gabriela, proceeded to the DOJ Task Force on Women and Children Protection (DOJ
Task Force) and filed a third complaint against Gil for Forcible Abduction with Rape and Obstruction of
Justice, punished under Presidential Decree No. 1829,

Q: Did the CA erred in revoking the DOJ resolutions based on grave abuse of discretion

A: No. It is well-settled that courts of law are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors
and the DOJ on the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the purpose of filing criminal
information, unless such findings are tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. The rationale behind the general rule rests on the principle of separation of powers,
dictating that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of indicting a suspect is properly an
executive function; while the exception hinges on the limiting principle of checks and balances, whereby
the judiciary, through a special civil action of certiorari, has been tasked by the present Constitution "to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
 Nissan Gallery-Ortigas vs Purifcacion Felipe

GR NO. 199067 (November 11, 2013)

Justice Mendoza

(Digest Proper)

FACTS:

This case stemmed from a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) filed by
petitioner Nissan Gallery-Ortigas  (Nissan), an entity engaged in the business of car dealership, against
respondent Purificacion F. Felipe (Purificacion)  with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The
said office found probable cause to indict Purificacion and filed an Information before the Metropolitan
Trial Court, (raffled to Branch 41), Quezon City (MeTC), for her issuance of a postdated check in the
amount of P1,020,000.00, which was subsequently dishonored upon presentment due to “STOP
PAYMENT.”

Purificacion issued the said check because her son, Frederick Felipe (Frederick), attracted by a huge
discount of P220,000.00, purchased a Nissan Terrano 4x4 sports and utility vehicle (SUV) from Nissan.
The term of the transaction was Cash-on-Delivery and no downpayment was required. The SUV was
delivered on May 14, 1997, but Frederick failed to pay upon delivery. Despite non-payment, Frederick
took possession of the vehicle.

Since then, Frederick had used and enjoyed the SUV for more than four (4) months without paying even a
single centavo of the purchase price. This constrained Nissan to send him two (2) demand letters, on
different dates, but he still refused to pay. Nissan, through its retained counsel, was prompted to send a
final demand letter. Reacting to the final demand, Frederick went to Nissan’s office and asked for a grace
period until October 30, 1997 within which to pay his full outstanding obligation amounting to
P1,026,750.00. Through further negotiation, the amount was eventually reduced to P1,020,000.00.

Frederick reneged on his promise and again failed to pay. On November 25, 1997, he asked his mother,
Purificacion, to issue the subject check as payment for his obligation. Purificacion acceded to his request.
Frederick then tendered her postdated check in the amount of P1,020,000.00. The check, however, was
dishonored upon presentment due to “STOP PAYMENT.”

A demand letter was served upon Purificacion, through Frederick, who lived with her. The letter informed
her of the dishonor of the check and gave her five (5) days from receipt within which to replace it with
cash or manager’s check. Despite receipt of the demand letter, Purificacion refused to replace the check
giving the reason that she was not the one who purchased the vehicle. On January 6, 1998, Nissan filed a
criminal case for violation of BP 22 against her.7

During the preliminary investigation before the Assistant City Prosecutor, Purificacion gave P200,000.00
as partial payment to amicably settle the civil aspect of the case. Thereafter, however, no additional
payment had been made.

After trial, the MeTC rendered its judgment acquitting Purificacion of the charge, but holding her civilly
liable to Nissan.

ISSUE: whether or not Purificacion is civilly liable for the issuance of a worthless check despite her
acquittal from the criminal charge.

RULING : Yes. Well-settled is the rule that a civil action is deemed instituted upon the filing of a criminal
action, subject to certain exceptions. Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that:
The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding
civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, with respect to criminal actions for violation of BP 22, it is explicitly
clear that the corresponding civil action is deemed included and that a reservation to file such separately
is not allowed.
The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its accompanying civil liability. The civil
aspect of every criminal case is based on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly
liable.[16] If the accused, however, is not... found to be criminally liable, it does not necessarily mean that
he will not likewise be held civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the
extinction of the civil action.