SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246837. July 3, 2019.]
BDO UNIBANK, INC., petitioner, vs.TIFFANY MILLAN BARRON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246837 — BDO UNIBANK, INC. vs. TIFFANY MILLAN BARRON
Petitioner faults the Court of Appeals for absolving respondent of any civil liability despite 1) her alleged admission that she encashed the forged checks in question; and 2) respondent's acquittal on reasonable doubt did not extinguish her civil liability. 1
The petition utterly lacks merit.
By its assailed Resolution 2 dated April 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals actually made a categorical finding that respondent did not commit the crime charged, consequently, she cannot be held civilly liable therefor, thus:
As We have found in Our Decision the factual circumstances and the evidence presented by the prosecution were not enough to lead this Court to believe that it was indeed accused-appellant who falsified the subject checks on the following grounds.
"First, accused-appellant did not make any misrepresentation when she encashed the checks addressed to her. As found earlier, accused-appellant had no participation whatsoever in the issuance and preparation of the checks and it is apparent from the records that Sherylyn was the author of falsification. HTcADC
Second, no fraud was employed when accused-appellant encashed the checks. It bears emphasis that the bank teller as well as the supervising officer of BDO verified with the Accounting Department of Century City as to the negotiability of the checks and it was upon their instruction to proceed with the encashment that the bank released the said amount to accused-appellant.
Third, it was not upon accused-appellant's alleged misrepresentation that BDO subsequently released the consideration of the checks to her, rather, it was Century City's Accounting Division, which gave the go signal to encash the check. The alleged dubiousness of the checks addressed to the accused-appellant would have been easily verified by the Accounting Department since it was the custodian of the checks of the company. It bears to emphasize that before the checks were encashed, it underwent verification, confirmation, override and approval of the bank's teller and branch accountant.
Fourth, the damage sustained by BDO cannot be attributed to accused-appellant. Records show that accused-appellant, once in possession of the amount, thereafter deposited the P390,000.00 to the account of Sherylyn with BPI and personally handed to the latter the remaining P20,000.00. Concededly, it was Sherylyn who benefitted from the proceeds of the checks. The P20,000.00 purportedly given by Sherylyn to accused-appellant should be treated as a separate transaction as it did not arise from the questioned check encashment. The P20,000.00 was already subjected to Sherylyn's disposition and control when the accused-appellant handed the said amount to her. Otherwise stated, the entire amount of P410,000.00 representing the proceeds of the two checks was given to Sherylyn." CAIHTE
Tellingly, accused-appellant's acquittal was based on the fact that she had not committed the offense imputed to her. Consequently, she cannot be held civilly liable. 3 (Emphasis supplied)
In fine, the Court of Appeals found that respondent had no hand at all in perpetrating the crime of estafa through falsification of a commercial document. She was merely the unsuspecting courier of the forged checks and their encashed value. She never profited from the transaction.
Daluraya v. Oliva4 ordained that when the prosecution is not able to establish that accused was the author of the crime charged, no civil liability may attach to the latter, thus:
A punctilious examination of the MeTC's Order, which the RTC sustained, will show that Daluraya's acquittal was based on the conclusion that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist, given that the prosecution was not able to establish that he was the author of the crime imputed against him. Such conclusion is clear and categorical when the MeTC declared that "the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are wanting in material details and they did not sufficiently establish that the accused precisely committed the crime charged against him." Furthermore, when Marla sought reconsideration of the MeTC's Order acquitting Daluraya, said court reiterated and firmly clarified that "the prosecution was not able to establish that the accused was the driver of the Nissan Vanette which bumped Marina Oliva" and that "there is no competent evidence on hand which proves that the accused was the person responsible for the death of Marina Oliva." (Emphasis supplied)
So must it be. aScITE
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in rendering its assailed dispositions as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The Decision dated December 17, 2018 and Resolution dated April 12, 2019 are AFFIRMED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 63-65.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 64-65.
4. 749 Phil. 531, 538 (2014).