Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 925 views

    Rimando vs. Sps. Aldaba (GR No. 203583

    Uploaded by

    Alljun Serenado
    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

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rimando vs. Sps. Aldaba (GR No. 203583

    Uploaded by

    Alljun Serenado
    925 views1 page
    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

    Original Title

    RIMANDO VS. SPS. ALDABA (GR NO. 203583

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    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

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    925 views1 page

    Rimando vs. Sps. Aldaba (GR No. 203583

    Uploaded by

    Alljun Serenado
    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

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 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