Case Digest: HUN HYUNG PARK v. EUNG WON CHOI

HUN HYUNG PARK v. EUNG WON CHOI

       Eung Won Choi (Choi) was charged for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati for issuing a postdated check in the amount of P1,875,000. The same was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. Choi filed a demurer to evidence after the prosecution rested its case. The Makati Metropolitan Trial Court granted the Demurrer and dismissed the case.

            Hun Hyung Park (Park) appealed the civil aspect of the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, contending that the dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil aspect. RTC held that while the evidence presented was insufficient to prove respondent‘s criminal liability, it did not altogether extinguish his civil liability. Upon a motion for reconsideration, however, the RTC set aside its decision and ordered the remand of the case to the MeTC for further proceedings, so that the defendant may adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the remand of the case to the MeTC is proper

HELD:

When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the whole case is submitted for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution as the accused is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. At that juncture, the court is called upon to decide the case including its civil aspect, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been waived or reserved.

In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce countervailing evidence if the court denies the demurrer. Such denial bears no distinction as to the two aspects of the case because there is a disparity of evidentiary value between the quanta of evidence in such aspects of the case. In other words, a court may not deny the demurrer as to the criminal aspect and at the same time grant the demurrer as to the civil aspect, for if the evidence so far presented is not insufficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt, then the same evidence is likewise not insufficient to establish civil liability by mere preponderance of evidence.

On the other hand, if the evidence so far presented is insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not follow that the same evidence is insufficient to establish a preponderance of evidence. For if the court grants the demurrer, proceedings on the civil aspect of the case generally proceeds. The only recognized instance when an acquittal on demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the civil aspect is when there is a finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Absent such determination, trial as to the civil aspect of the case must perforce continue.
In the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case without any finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Choi did not assail the RTC order of remand. He thereby recognized that there is basis for a remand. Indicatively, Choi stands by his defense that he merely borrowed P1,500,000 with the remainder representing the interest, and that he already made a partial payment of P1,590,000. Park counters, however, that the payments made by Choi pertained to other transactions. Given these conflicting claims which are factual, a remand of the case would afford the fullest opportunity for the parties to ventilate, and for the trial court to resolve the same.