This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| In Rodriguez v. Ponferrada,[82] we explained that a civil action in a BP 22 case is not a bar to a civil action in estafa case. In rejecting the theory of petitioner therein that the civil action arising from the criminal case for violation of BP 22 precludes the institution of the corresponding civil action in the criminal case for estafa pending before the RTC, we ruled that Rule 111 of the Rules of Court expressly allows the institution of a civil action in the crimes of both estafa and violation of BP 22, without need of election by the offended party. There is no forum shopping because both remedies are simultaneously available to the offended party. We explained that while every such act of issuing a bouncing check involves only one civil liability for the offended party who has sustained only a single injury, this single civil liability can be the subject of both civil actions in the estafa case and the BP 22 case. However, there may only be one recovery of the single civil liability. | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| This rule applies especially with the advent of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Thus, during the pendency of both the estafa and the BP Blg. 22 cases, the action to recover the civil liability was impliedly instituted and remained pending before the respective trial courts. This is consonant with our ruling in Rodriguez v. Ponferrada[14] that the possible single civil liability arising from the act of issuing a bouncing check can be the subject of both civil actions deemed instituted with the estafa case and the prosecution for violation of BP Blg. 22, simultaneously available to the complaining party, without traversing the prohibition against forum shopping.[15] Prior to the judgment in either the estafa case or the BP Blg. 22 case, petitioner, as the complainant, cannot be deemed to have elected either of the civil actions both impliedly instituted in the said criminal proceedings to the exclusion of the other.[16] | |||||
|
2007-03-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The purpose of Section 1(b) of Rule 111 is explained by Justice Florenz D. Regalado, former chairman of the Committee tasked with the revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. He clarified that the special rule on Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases was added because the dockets of the courts were clogged with such litigations and creditors were using the courts as collectors. While ordinarily no filing fees are charged for actual damages in criminal cases, the rule on the necessary inclusion of a civil action with the payment of filing fees based on the face value of the check involved was laid down to prevent the practice of creditors of using the threat of a criminal prosecution to collect on their credit free of charge.[19] | |||||