An accused may be acquitted of the crime charged but still civilly liable for damages. This is illustrated in this case of Al the manager of a Bulacan rural bank who was also sidelining as a real estate broker particularly to bank depositors.
The case involved a piece of property located in a Bulacan subdivision purchased from the GSIS by Beth under a conditional sale dated November 29, 1982 payable in installment for 25 years. Apparently Beth had difficulty paying the installment and incurred arrearages almost right after acquiring it and so would like to dispose of it.
Because of Al’s good reputation in realty sale and that he could be relied upon, a bank depositor by the name of Ely approached Al after he got to know from a certain Lisa that there was a house for sale which he might like. Thus in 1991 Al offered Beth’s property to Ely for P215,000 plus assumption of the outstanding obligation with the GSIS. Ely liked the property and agreed to buy it. Without even inquiring as to the property’s ownership and Al’s authority to transfer it, Ely paid Al the P215,000 on January 20, 1992 as evidenced by a receipt of the same date. Thereafter Ely occupied the property and spent P400,000 on renovation.
Later that year, GSIS sent notice directing Beth to pay her outstanding obligation of P535,000. When Ely received said notice, he was alarmed and thus referred the matter to Al. Al then accompanied Ely to Beth and asked Beth to sign the deed of sale and transfer of rights over the property in Ely’s favor. But Beth refused because she did not authorize Al to sell the property and she did not receive the P215,000 from Al. Nevertheless Al assured Ely that he would settle the problem.
Seven years later or in 1999 Ely received another notice from GSIS showing that Beth’s outstanding obligation already amounted to P752,157.10 with threat of cancellation of the deed of conditional sale. Ely referred the matter to his lawyer. Then upon advice of his lawyer, Ely made an initial payment of P50,000 to GSIS to forestall cancellation of said deed. Thereafter Ely appealed to Beth to already sign the deed of sale and transfer of rights in his favor. Beth agreed even if she had not received the P215,000 from Al because “naawa na rin ako sa kanila dahil matagal na silang nakatira doon”.
On the other hand Ely filed a complaint of Estafa against Al when Al still refused to return the P215,000 he received from him. In a decision dated February 26, 2002, the RTC did not find Al guilty of estafa beyond reasonable doubt because the element of deceit on the part of Al when he received the P215,000 was not proven. But the RTC ordered Al to pay Ely the P215,000 civil liability.
Al still questioned the RTC decision finding him civilly liable for P215,000. He claimed that he was not civilly liable because Beth already transferred her rights to Ely. Was Al correct?
No. In a decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 30, 2004 upheld by the Supreme Court because it involves a question of fact no longer subject to review, the CA found that Al received the amount of P215,000 from Ely. So at the very least, Al’s obligation to return the money to Ely arises from quasi-contract particularly known as “solutio indebiti” which provides that “if something is received when there is no right to demand it and it was unduly delivered through mistake its obligation to return arises’ (Article 2154 Civil Code).
Even if there had been a transfer of right over the property from Beth to Ely, Beth did not receive any consideration for such transfer. The amount of P215,000 which was given to Al was never the consideration of the said transfer but the sympathy of Beth to Ely. It is not far fetch that Beth will later on demand from Ely the payment of the consideration for the transfer of her right when Ely had already collected from Al (Pagsibigan vs. People G.R.163868, June 4, 2009).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net