View full case

PAZ T. BERNARDO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioner Paz T. Bernardo (Bernardo) obtained a loan from Carmencita C. Bumanglag (Bumanglag) in the amount of P460,000.00. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note and Bernardo gave Bumanglag the owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. (T-1034) 151841 as additional security. However, Bernardo took back the title and issued five Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) checks to Bumanglag, which were later dishonored due to "Account Closed." Bumanglag deposited the checks and when they were dishonored, she filed a criminal complaint against Bernardo for violation of B.P. 22. The RTC found Bernardo guilty of the offense and sentenced her to imprisonment and ordered her to pay Bumanglag the amount of the loan with interest and penalty charges. The CA affirmed Bernardo's conviction and modified the penalty to a fine. Bernardo filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Can a person be held civilly liable under different sources of obligation for the same act or omission?

  2. Does the death of an accused pending appeal extinguish their civil liability based solely on the offense?

  3. Can the civil liability for violation of B.P. 22 be enforced against the estate of the accused?

  4. Was the accused denied due process?

  5. Whether the RTC erred in considering the accused to have waived her right to present evidence due to repeated failure to appear at scheduled hearing dates.

  6. Whether Bernardo's claim of payment was supported by adequate proof.

  7. Whether Bernardo's obligation to Bumanglag had been extinguished.

RULING:

  1. Yes, a person can be held civilly liable under different sources of obligation for the same act or omission. Civil liability may arise from a crime (ex delicto) or from other sources such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts. These civil liabilities may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings.

  2. The death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes their criminal liability and the corresponding civil liability based solely on the offense (delict). However, independent civil liabilities survive death and can be pursued through a separate civil action filed against the estate of the accused.

  3. In cases involving violation of B.P. 22, the civil action is deemed included in the criminal action. Only a single suit is filed and tried to declog court dockets. Thus, the civil liabilities arising from the issuance of a worthless check can still be enforced against the estate of the accused, even after their death.

  4. The accused was not denied due process. She was given ample opportunity to present evidence in her defense but failed to do so. The trial court considered her right to present defense evidence waived based on her repeated absences and the absence of her counsel. The trial court's discretion to postpone trial or consider the waiver of presenting evidence must be exercised wisely, considering the circumstances of the case and ensuring substantial justice. In this case, the trial court took necessary steps to protect the accused's rights.

  5. The RTC did not err in considering the accused to have waived her right to present evidence. The accused and her counsel repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled hearing dates without justifiable reason, despite warnings from the RTC that failure to appear would result in a waiver of the right to present evidence. This failure to appear, despite repeated continuances granted by the RTC, was sufficient legal justification for the court to proceed and render judgment based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

  6. Bernardo's claim of payment was not supported by adequate proof. The checks and promissory note remained in the possession of Bumanglag, who had to demand the satisfaction of Bernardo's obligation when the checks became due and were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank. Bumanglag's possession of the promissory note, coupled with the dishonored checks, strongly buttresses her claim that Bernardo's obligation had not been extinguished.

  7. Bernardo's obligation to Bumanglag had not been extinguished. The weight of evidence preponderates in favor of Bumanglag's position, as the existence of the obligation to pay has been sufficiently established through the promissory note and the checks submitted in evidence. Bernardo's supposition that she had settled the obligation and had the title to the property returned to her was not supported by the evidence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Civil liability may arise from different sources of obligation for the same act or omission.

  • The death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes their criminal liability and corresponding civil liability based solely on the offense, but independent civil liabilities survive and can be pursued through a separate civil action.

  • Civil liability for violation of B.P. 22 is deemed included in the criminal action, and the civil action can be enforced against the estate of the accused.

  • The accused must be given the opportunity to present evidence in their defense, but the discretion to postpone trial or consider the waiver of presenting evidence lies with the trial court, considering the circumstances of the case and ensuring substantial justice.

  • The burden of proving payment lies on the debtor. Once the existence of indebtedness is established, the debtor must show with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.

  • The right to present evidence can be waived if the accused fails, without justifiable reason, to appear at scheduled hearing dates despite warnings from the court.

  • The burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the creditor to produce evidence to show nonpayment.