FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 234405, December 09, 2020
MARTIN N. LIM, JR., Petitioner, v. MARIA CONCEPCION D. LINTAG, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, C.J.:
On appeal is the May 18, 2017 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 104923 which affirmed the March 20, 2015 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTQ, Branch 148, Makati City, in Criminal Case No. 09-3335 and 09-3336, finding Martin N. Lim (petitioner) civilly liable to Maria Concepcion D. Lintag (Lintag).
On October 30, 2009, two (2) separate Informations for estafa were filed against petitioner, viz.:cralawred
Information dated October 30, 2009 in Criminal Case No. 09-3335 for estafa under Article 315(1)00 of the RPCPetitioner pleaded "not guilty" upon arraignment.5
On the 9th day of December 2008, in the [C]ity of Makati, the Philippines, the accused being the sales agent of New San Jose Builders, Inc. (NSJBI), received in trust from Maria Concepcion D. Lintag, a BPI Family Savings Bank check no. 0478253 in the amount of P158,344.48 as payment for the expenses to be incurred in the transfer of the unit purchased by the complainant from NSJBI and with the corresponding obligation on the part of the accused to immediately remit/turn-over the check to NSJBI, but the accused[,] far from complying with his obligation, with intent to defraud and with unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence encashed the check, and thereafter, accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously misappropriate, misapply, and convert the proceeds of the check to his own personal use and benefit, and the accused, despite repeated demands made by [the] complainant, failed and refused and still fails and refuses to return to the complainant or to remit/turn-over the amount of P158,344.48 to New San Jose Builders, Inc., to the damage and prejudice of Maria Concepcion D. Lintag.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
Information dated October 30, 2009 in Criminal Case No. 09-3336 for estafa under Article 315(2) (a) in relation to Article 172 of the RPC:
On the 16th day of January 2009, in the [C]ity of Makati, the Philippines, accused, being the sales agent of New San Jose Builders, Inc. (NSJBI), received from Maria Concepcion D. Lintag BPI Family Savings Bank check no. 0478252 in the amount of P1,141,655.52, which is a commercial document, as partial payment for the condominium unit purchased from NSJBI, with the corresponding obligation on the part of the accused to deliver the check to NSJBI, the payee thereof, but the accused instead erased the words "New San Jose Builders, Inc." and wrote the word "CASH" as payee, and thereafter affixed the customary signature of Ma. Concepcion D. Lintag above the said word and accused, once he had accomplished the same, encashed the check to the drawee bank, accused knowing very well that the complainant did not participate or authorize the accused to change the payee's name and sign on her behalf in view of such falsification, accused was able to encash the check in the amount of P1,141,655.52 and received the proceeds thereof, to the damage and prejudice of Maria Concepcion D. Lintag.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
WHEREFORE, premises considered, for failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused Martin N. Lim Jr. is hereby ACQUITTED on Criminal Case Nos. 09-3335 and 09-3336.The RTC Decision states that the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in prosecuting for the crime of estafa through misappropriation or conversion under paragraph (1) (b) Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code:cralawred
Nevertheless, Accused Martin N. Lim[, Jr.] is held civilly liable to the private complainant and is hereby ordered to pay the latter the following:SO ORDERED.7
- Nominal Damages in the amount of P200,000.00
- Moral Damages in the amount of P200,000.00
- Attorney's fees in the amount of P100,000.00
- Cost of Suit.
The RTC found that the prosecution failed to prove the first and second elements of the crime charged. The first element necessitates material or physical, and juridical possession of the thing received. As stated by the RTC, petitioner only had material or physical possession of the checks because he received them not "as agent of [Lintag]" but as an employee of NSJBI.
(1) that the money, good or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, of on commission, of for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is demand made by the offended party on the offender.8
The Decision dated March 20, 2015 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, AWARDING P1,300,000.00 as actual damages (representing the total value of BPI Family Savings Bank Check Nos. 0478252 and 0478253), P200,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P500,000.00 as attorney's fees. The award of P200,000.00 as nominal damages is DELETED.9On June 16, 2017, petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied in a Resolution10 dated September 6, 2017.
Specifically, the question here is whether or not it is proper for the Court of Appeals, following the trial court, to award a huge money judgment to the private complainant despite the findings that:cralawredThe only issue to be resolved before the Court is whether or not Lim is liable for civil damages.
(a) The trial court did not find the accused to have committed the crimes charged or profited therefrom. (b) There is no preponderance of evidence in these cases establishing that accused's acts caused the loss and damage to the private complainant. (c) The rules and jurisprudence are clear that, if there is no basis to charge the accused, then he has no criminal liability; it follows that he should also have no civil liability.11
x x x [T]he Court notes that the two checks were admittedly crossed checks or for deposit only which meant that before it could be credited to a party, it had to undergo the standard bank clearing process. No paper trail was presented to establish as to whose account the said BPI checks were deposited or credited. No BPI representative was presented to testify on the process conducted before the said checks were cleared and appropriated in order to determine to whose account the proceeds of the checks went. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish with moral certainty that the proceeds of the subject checks went to the accused or that he misappropriated the same.13The RTC, however, held petitioner civilly liable for failing to report the alleged robbery incident. On appeal, the CA modified the civil liability by increasing the damages due after determining that the proximate cause for Lintag's financial damage is the failure to report the robbery incident. The Court now affirms but modifies the award of damages of the CA.
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a 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 and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.A perusal of the records would disclose that the robbery incident was unsupported and uncorroborated. The witness of petitioner was not present during the alleged robbery.16 Petitioner also stated in his Judicial Affidavit17 that he actually knew who caused the encashment of the checks, to wit:cralawred
Q5: What is your work prior to being as (sic) salesman of New San Jose Builders?Petitioner's passive response to the alleged robbery incident and his failure to file a complaint against his Madelcor creditors after learning that the proceeds of the checks allegedly ended up in their hands seem suspect.
A: I used to be an owner of a business, Madelcor International Corporation ("Madelcor," for brevity), which is engaged in installation of PABX microwave communications equipments (sic).
Q6: What happened to that business?
A: The business went bankrupt in 2006-2007 when my parents swindled me and took the business away from me. Then, the personal and institutional creditors of Madelcor run (sic) after me for the corporate liabilities, which reached to a total amount of more than Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00).
Q7: What did you do after getting broke?
A: I started all over again. That is why, I worked with New San Jose Builders as a salesman.
x x x x
Q37: Did you inform Ms. Lintag about the incident?
A: I did not inform Ms. Lintag right away.
Q38. Why?
A: Sir I have several reasons. I am terribly afraid that she will not believe my story and trust me anymore, and she will report the problem to the company and discontinue with the sales transactions. That way, I will lose my job. I thought of admitting and paying the civil obligation of the checks to Ms. Lintag. Anyway, the checks would be considered as payment to my Madelcor creditors who were responsible for the incident. Furthermore, I estimated that only the second check, which was paid to "CASH" in the amount of P158,344.48, will be the damage of Ms. Lintag. I thought that I can pay that amount with my sales commission from the company.18 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Pedro B. Corales concurring; rollo, pp. 25-52.
2 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 493-514.
3 Records, Vol. 1, p. 2.
4Id. at 6.
5Id. at 115.
6 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 493-514.
7Id. at 514.
8Id. at 509-510, citing Serona v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 130423, November 18, 2012 (Unreported).
9Rollo, p. 53.
10Id. at 62.
11Id. at 14.
12Chua v. People, G.R. No. 195248, November 22, 2017.
13 Records, Vol. 2, p. 511.
14People v. Librero, 395 Phil. 425, 436 (2000).
15Beltran v. Villarosa, 603 Phil. 279, 289 (2009).
16 TSN, June 25, 2014, pp. 16-17.
17 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 595-601.
18Id. at 596-599.
19Benabaye v. People, 755 Phil. 144, 156 (2015).
20Espino v. Spouses Bulut, 664 Phil. 702, 710 (2011).
21Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 536 Phil. 404, 412 (2006).