Sanchez v. FEBTC The original criminal action involves the prosecution of Sanchez for estafa or swindling through falsification of commercial documents Kai Chin is the director and representative of Chemical Bank. Its subsidiary, Chemical International Finance Limited is an investor in Far East Bank and Trust Co. To represent CIFL, Chin was made a director and senior VP of FEBTC and Josephine Sanchez is Chins secretary FEBTC says that Sanchez made unauthorized withdrawals from the account of CIFL in FEBTC using forged/falsified applications for cashiers checks that would be deposited into her account and, once credited, would be withdrawn by Sanchez to be misappropriated, for her personal benefit to the damage of FEBTC Sanchez allegedly employed 3 different modes in the perpetration of the crime that each involved some kind of forgery of Chins signatures Sanchez then confessed to Chin that she tampered with the CIFL account and Chin referred the matter to the FEBTC audit division All checks and the applications for their issuance were sent to the PNP Crime Lab for examination: found all Chins signatures were good forgeries FEBTC had to reimburse the CIFL account with P3,787,530.86 Sanchez denied the forgeries, asserting that the deposit into her account was with the authority and under the instructions of Chin and that she withdrew the money but turned the same over to Chin Chin denied giving Sanchez authority, saying that she signed the documents but he did not rebut the alleged turnover of the proceeds

RTC Found Chin gave Sanchez authority to transact matters concerning the CIFL account Doubts integrity of the results of the PNP handwriting tests because Chins contemporaneous signatures were not used and FEBTC, having initiated the tests, used sample signatures of their own choice Also, the fraudulent transactions had been approved and allowed by FEBTCs own officials despite apparent procedural infirmities yet only Sanchez was indicted Prosecution failed to prove Sanchez culpability with moral certainty Denied MR by FEBTC, said Sanchez acquitted not based on reasonable doubt but that she wasnt the author of the frauds perpetrated thus no civil liability against her CA Granted FEBTC appeal Acquittal doesnt preclude recovery of civil indemnity based on quasi-delict because the outcome is inconsequential to adjudge civil liability from the same act that could also be a quasi-delict Sanchez was acquitted on reasonable doubt from the insufficiency of the evidence to establish her as having perpetrated the crime and not the nonexistence of the crime where civil liability could arise While forgery couldnt be proven, faulted Sanchez for failure to turn over the proceeds to FEBTC an actionable fraud and thus ordered her to pay actual damages for the checks in her name and account

ISSUES/HELD:1. Procedural: Did the judgment of conviction already become final when the MR of the civil aspect of the case was filed by FEBTC? NO: The time for filing the same should be counted from FEBTCs receipt of the decisions2. What is the civil liability of Sanchez, if any, in light of her acquittal? Art. 100, RPC: every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable except when no actual damage like espionage, violation of neutrality, flight to enemy country, crime against popular representation Extinction of criminal liability does not always carry with it the extinction of civil liability Art. 29, NCC: When the accused is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence An action for the recovery of civil liability is necessarily included in the criminal proceedings unless: Express waiver Reservation Civil filed before criminal Because none of the exceptions exist, the civil action was also prosecuted in the criminal case so there can be no more separate civil action CONSEQUENCES OF ACQUITTAL ON CIVIL LIABILITY: There are two kinds of acquittal1. Acquittal because the accused was not the author of the act or omission complained of No civil liability for the person found not to be the perpetrator of the crime Acquitted never be held liable for it: there being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question Civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of2. Acquittal because guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt Even if guilt not satisfactorily proven, no exemption from civil liability, which is proven only by preponderance of evidence This is what is contemplated under Art. 29: the same act or omission Acquittal doesnt prevent judgment on civil aspect where:1. Acquittal on reasonable doubt2. Court declared accused liable civilly3. Civil liability not based on crime for which accused was acquitted Civil action based on delict is extinguished if there is a finding that the act or omission from which civil liability may arise did not exist or accused didnt commit the imputed acts or omissions If the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt but the court renders judgment on the civil aspect, prosecution cannot appeal from the judgment of acquittal or else double jeopardy Aggrieved/offended or accused or both may appeal from the judgment on the civil aspect if the case within the period therefor ONLY in the cases of 1, 2, 3 above Because Sanchez was found not to have committed the crime imputed, her acquittal extinguished the action for civil liability There was no evidence on record that the money never turned over to Kai Chan Sanchez consistently claimed that she acted with authority, that even if deposited in her account, she withdrew and turned value over the Chin Records dont show that she ever appropriated the money for her personal gain Kai Chin didnt rebut the statement as to turnover Records show that Kai Chin did in fact give Sanchez authority The issue of forgery wasnt successfully proven RULE 111, SEC. 2(B) ROC: A finding in a final judgment that the fact from which civil liability may arise does not exist carries with it the extinction of the civil liability Was the civil liability of Sanchez duly established? NO Sanchez was acquitted based on the fact that she hadnt committed the offense imputed to her she cant be held civilly liable