Scribd
Upload
1K views

Rimando vs. Sps. Aldaba (GR No. 203583

Rimando convinced a married couple (Sps. Aldaba) to invest in Multitel Corporation with the promise of 8% monthly interest. Rimando gave the couple post-dated checks that later bounced. The couple filed criminal cases for estafa and BP 22 against Rimando. Rimando was acquitted of both criminal cases but was still found civilly liable for the amount invested as an accommodation party for one of the checks. Rimando argued her acquittal should eliminate civil liability, but the court ruled that acquittal does not preclude civil liability if it does not arise from the crime acquitted of. The court found Rimando's civil liability came from acting as a surety by lending her name to Multitel

Uploaded by

Alljun Serenado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views

Rimando vs. Sps. Aldaba (GR No. 203583

Rimando convinced a married couple (Sps. Aldaba) to invest in Multitel Corporation with the promise of 8% monthly interest. Rimando gave the couple post-dated checks that later bounced. The couple filed criminal cases for estafa and BP 22 against Rimando. Rimando was acquitted of both criminal cases but was still found civilly liable for the amount invested as an accommodation party for one of the checks. Rimando argued her acquittal should eliminate civil liability, but the court ruled that acquittal does not preclude civil liability if it does not arise from the crime acquitted of. The court found Rimando's civil liability came from acting as a surety by lending her name to Multitel

Uploaded by

Alljun Serenado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

RIMANDO VS. SPS. ALDABA (G.R. No. 203583, October 13, 2014.

FACTS:
Rimando convince Sps. Aldaba to invest in Multitel Corporation under the assurance that that their
money would earn 8% monthly interest. In turn, Rimando gave Sps. Aldaba 3 post-dated checks. Upon
maturity of the checks, Sps. Aldaba attempted to encash the same but were dishonored for being drawn
against insufficient funds. Sps. Aldaba filed criminal cases for BP 22 and estafa. Rimando was
acquitted of both but was nonetheless held in the estafa case to be civilly liable to Sps. Aldaba in the
amount of their investment as an accommodation party to one of the checks she issued to Sps. Aldaba
on behalf of Multitel.

Rimando argues that her acquittal and exoneration from the civil liability in the BP 22 cases should
have barred Sps. Aldaba from claiming civil liability from her in the estafa case.

ISSUE: WON Rimando’s acquittal from said criminal cases extinguished her civil liability.

RULING:
It is well-settled that "the acquittal of the accused does not automatically preclude a judgment against
him on the civil aspect of the case where the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not
based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted

In this case, Rimando's civil liability did not arise from any purported act constituting the crime of
estafa as Rimando never employed any deceit on Sps. Aldaba to induce them to invest money in
Multitel. Rather, her civil liability was correctly traced from being an accommodation party to one of
the checks she issued to Sps. Aldaba on behalf of Multitel. In lending her name to Multitel, she, in
effect, acted as a surety to the latter, and as such, she may be held directly liable for the value of the
issued check.

You might also like