View full case

ELIZABETH EUSEBIO-CALDERON v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review of a decision made by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner, Elizabeth Eusebio-Calderon, is charged with three counts of Estafa. In Criminal Case No. 1190-M-95, the accused issued several checks to Amelia Casanova, knowing that she did not have sufficient funds in the bank. The total amount involved was P130,900. In Criminal Case No. 1191-M-95, the accused issued several checks to Teresita Eusebio, again knowing that she did not have sufficient funds in the bank. The total amount involved was P172,250. In Criminal Case No. 1192-M-95, the accused issued several checks to Manolito Eusebio, also knowing that she did not have sufficient funds in the bank. The total amount involved was P60,000.

The private complainants are the petitioner's aunt and cousins. According to the private complainants, the petitioner assured them that the checks would be honored, and they gave her money because she showed them her pieces of jewelry. The petitioner admits issuing the checks but denies any intention to defraud her creditors.

After trial, the lower court found the petitioner guilty of Estafa and imposed a prison sentence, but held that her liability for the "interest checks" was only civil.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the Court of Appeals err in finding the appellant civilly liable to complainants with respect to the interest in the principal loan despite the dismissal of the interest checks by the Regional Trial Court?

  2. Is the interest agreed upon by the parties usurious?

  3. Should the private respondents file a separate civil complaint for the claim of Sum of Money?

  4. Whether or not the accused can still be held civilly liable even after acquittal on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals erred in finding the appellant civilly liable to complainants with respect to the interest in the principal loan despite the dismissal of the interest checks by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals also erred in failing to consider whether the interest agreed upon by the parties is usurious. Additionally, the Court of Appeals failed to consider whether the private respondents should have filed a separate civil complaint for their claim of Sum of Money.

  2. Yes, the accused can still be held civilly liable even after acquittal on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. The acquittal on reasonable doubt only extinguishes the criminal liability but not the civil liability. The civil liability may be proved by preponderance of evidence. In this case, the accused may be held civilly liable for the amount borrowed based on the evidence presented. However, the interest checks issued by the accused are void since there was no written proof of the payable interest except for a verbal agreement, which is not valid under Article 1956 of the Civil Code. Petitioner is liable for legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the time it is judicially demanded.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In a criminal case, an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review. The appellate court has the jurisdiction to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty and cite the proper provision.

  • An accused who is acquitted on reasonable doubt on the guilt can still be held civilly liable for damages.

  • Acquittal on reasonable doubt extinguishes the criminal liability but not the civil liability.

  • Civil liability may be proved by preponderance of evidence.

  • An agreement as to payment of interest must be in writing to be valid.

  • In the absence of a stipulation as to interest, the legal interest rate is 12% per annum.

  • The legal interest shall be computed from the time it is judicially demanded until the obligation is satisfied.