The Supreme Court held that the death of a person found guilty of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, does not automatically extinguish their civil liability, especially when that liability is rooted in contract. The ruling clarifies that while criminal liability is extinguished upon death, civil liabilities arising from the issuance of worthless checks can still be pursued against the deceased’s estate. This ensures that creditors are not left without recourse and that obligations are honored even after the debtor’s death, providing a significant safeguard for financial transactions.

Dishonored Checks and a Disputed Debt: Can a Borrower Evade Liability Through Death?

This case revolves around a loan obtained by Paz T. Bernardo from Carmencita C. Bumanglag. As security for the loan, Bernardo initially provided the owner’s duplicate copy of a Transfer Certificate of Title. Later, Bernardo reclaimed the title, substituting it with five Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) checks totaling P460,000.00. When Bumanglag deposited these checks, they were dishonored due to the account being closed. Despite a notice of dishonor, Bernardo failed to make good on the checks, leading Bumanglag to file a criminal complaint for five counts of violating B.P. 22.

Bernardo argued that the checks were presented beyond the 90-day period stipulated by law and denied receiving any notice of dishonor. She also claimed to have repaid the loan in cash, though she lacked receipts to prove it. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Bernardo guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), which modified the penalty from imprisonment to a fine. Bernardo then appealed to the Supreme Court, but she passed away during the proceedings. The central legal question became whether Bernardo’s death extinguished her civil liability, given that the criminal charges could no longer proceed.

The Supreme Court addressed the classes of civil liabilities that can arise from an act or omission that causes damage to another. The Court explained that if the conduct constitutes a felony, the accused may be held civilly liable under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code (ex delicto). This liability is rooted in the facts that constitute the crime and arises from the offense charged. However, the same act or omission may also give rise to independent civil liabilities based on other sources of obligation, such as contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, as enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code.

Distinguishing between these types of civil liabilities is crucial because the death of the accused has different effects on each. As a general rule, the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes the criminal liability and the corresponding civil liability based solely on the offense (delict). The Court emphasized this point, stating, “In a sense, death absolves the accused from any earthly responsibility arising from the offense—a divine act that no human court can reverse, qualify, much less disregard.” However, independent civil liabilities, such as those arising from contract, survive death and may be pursued by filing a separate civil action against the estate of the accused, subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended.

In cases involving B.P. 22, the criminal action is deemed to include the corresponding civil action, a rule designed to streamline court proceedings and reduce the burden on the judiciary. “The inclusion of the civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on dishonored checks,” the Court noted, citing Hyatt v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp. As a result, the death of Bernardo did not automatically extinguish the civil liabilities arising from the issuance of a worthless check, particularly since the liability was also based on a contractual obligation.

The Court dismissed Bernardo’s claim that she was denied due process, emphasizing that she had been afforded ample opportunity to present evidence in her defense but failed to do so. The RTC had granted numerous postponements, but Bernardo and her counsel repeatedly failed to appear without justifiable reasons. Eventually, the trial court considered her right to present defense evidence waived, a decision the Supreme Court found justified. As the Court held in People v. Angco, “His failure to appear with counsel of his choice at the hearing of the case, notwithstanding repeated postponements and warnings that failure to so appear would be deemed a waiver to present evidence in his defense…was sufficient legal justification for the trial court to proceed and render judgment upon the evidence before it.”

Turning to the substantive issue of whether Bernardo had indeed settled her obligation, the Court found that she failed to adduce sufficient evidence of payment. The Court reiterated that the focal issue was Bernardo’s civil liability, primarily based on contract and the damages suffered by Bumanglag due to the failure to pay. Her defenses under B.P. 22, such as the checks being presented beyond the 90-day period or the lack of a notice of dishonor, were deemed irrelevant in the context of the contractual obligation. “One who pleads payment carries the burden of proving it,” the Court stated, citing Vitarich Corporation v. Losin. Since the existence of the debt was established through the promissory note and the checks, the burden was on Bernardo to prove that she had discharged the obligation by payment.

Bernardo’s principal defense rested on the assertion that she had repaid the loan, leading Bumanglag to return the title to the property. However, the Court found this claim unsupported by credible evidence. The handwritten note evidencing the transaction indicated that Bernardo requested the title to obtain another loan to pay Bumanglag, suggesting that the original debt remained outstanding. “Received original copy of Title No. T-151841 in the name of Mapalad Bernardo for loan purposes to pay Mrs. Carmencita Bumanglag,” the note read. The defense even admitted the genuineness of Bernardo’s signature on this document.

Furthermore, the Court noted that if payment had indeed been made, Bernardo should have redeemed or taken back the checks and the promissory note. The fact that these documents remained in Bumanglag’s possession strongly supported the claim that the obligation had not been extinguished. “Bumanglag’s possession of the promissory note, coupled with the dishonored checks, strongly buttresses her claim that Bernardo’s obligation had not been extinguished,” the Court explained. Consequently, the Court found that the weight of evidence preponderated in favor of Bumanglag’s position that Bernardo had not yet settled her obligation.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the death of Paz T. Bernardo extinguished her civil liability for violating B.P. 22, given that the criminal charges could no longer proceed. The Court clarified that civil liabilities based on contract survive death and can be enforced against the deceased’s estate.
What is B.P. 22?	B.P. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the act of issuing checks without sufficient funds or credit, and which are subsequently dishonored upon presentment. The law aims to maintain confidence in the banking system and deter the issuance of worthless checks.
What is the difference between civil liability ex delicto and independent civil liability?	Civil liability ex delicto arises from the commission of a crime, while independent civil liability arises from other sources of obligation, such as contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts. In this case, Bernardo’s civil liability stemmed from both the violation of B.P. 22 and the contractual obligation to repay the loan.
What happens to civil liability when the accused dies during the appeal process?	Generally, the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes the criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the offense (ex delicto). However, independent civil liabilities, such as those arising from contract, survive death and can be pursued against the estate of the accused.
What is the burden of proof when claiming payment of a debt?	The party claiming payment of a debt carries the burden of proving that the payment was indeed made. This typically requires presenting evidence such as receipts, bank statements, or other documents that substantiate the payment.
Why was Bernardo’s due process claim rejected?	Bernardo’s due process claim was rejected because she was given ample opportunity to present her defense but repeatedly failed to do so. The trial court granted numerous postponements, but Bernardo and her counsel often failed to appear without justifiable reasons.
What evidence did the Court consider in determining Bernardo’s civil liability?	The Court considered the promissory note, the dishonored checks, and the handwritten note related to the title. The fact that the checks and promissory note remained in Bumanglag’s possession, coupled with the handwritten note, suggested that the loan remained unpaid.
What is the significance of including the civil action in a B.P. 22 case?	Including the civil action in a B.P. 22 case streamlines court proceedings and reduces the burden on the judiciary. It prevents the need for separate civil and criminal actions, allowing for a more efficient resolution of the dispute.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that obligations must be honored, even after death. By allowing the enforcement of civil liabilities against the estate of a deceased individual, the Court ensures fairness to creditors and upholds the integrity of financial transactions. This ruling provides a clear legal framework for addressing similar cases and serves as a reminder of the enduring nature of contractual obligations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PAZ T. BERNARDO, SUBSTITUTED BY HEIRS, MAPALAD G. BERNARDO, EMILIE B. KO, MARILOU B. VALDEZ, EDWIN T. BERNARDO AND GERVY B. SANTOS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 182210, October 05, 2015