SAPIERA

SAPIERA vs CA G.R. No.
128927, September 14, 1999

Thursday, January 29, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic
Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Commercial Law Issue: Can petitioner be required to pay civil indemnity to
private respondent after trial court had acquitted her of
Facts: On several occasions, petitioner Sapiera, a sari- criminal charges?
sari store owner, purchased from Monnico Mart certain
grocery items, mostlycigarettes, and paid for them with
checks issued by one Arturo de Guzman. These checks Held: Yes. It is undisputed that the four (4) checks issued
were signed at the back by the petitioner. by De Guzman were signed by petitioner at the back
without any indication as to how she should be bound
When presented for payment, the checks thereby and, therefore, she is deemed to be an indorser
were dishonored because the drawer’s account was thereof. The NIL clearly provides – Sec. 17. Construction
already closed. Private respondent Roman Sua informed where instrument is ambiguous. --- Where the language of
De Guzman and petitioner about the dishonor but both the instrument isambiguous, or there
failed to pay the value of the checks. Hence, four (4) are admissions therein, the following rules of
charges of estafa were filed against petitioner construction apply: x x x (f) Where a signature is so placed
but consequently she was acquitted for insufficiency of upon the instrument that it is not clear in what capacity the
evidence but the court a quo did not rule on whether she person making the same intended to sign, he is deemed
could be held civilly liable for the checks she indorsed to an indorser. x x x
private respondent. On appeal, the respondent court
ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the remaining The dismissal of the criminal cases against petitioner did
P210, P150. After deducting the amount already collected not erase her civil liability since the dismissal was due to
by the latter as civil indemnity in the criminal cases against insufficiency of evidence and not from a declaration from
De Guzman. Hence, this instant petition. the court that the fact from which the civil action might arise
did not exist. An accused acquitted of estafa may On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act of
negligence, and without the owner having reasonable
nevertheless be held civilly liable where the facts opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a
established by the evidence so warrant. The accused person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the
should be adjudged liable for the unpaid value of the automobile, although present therein at the time the act
was committed, is not responsible, either criminally or
checks signed by her in favor of the complainant.
civilly, therefor. The act complained of must be continued
in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that
the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's acts
4. Facts: On August 13, 1994, the jeepney owned by
his own."
complainant and driven by Edgardo Castillo, plied its
In the case at bar, nowhere does it show that
usual route going to Virac, Catanduanes. While
complainant participated in abetted or even approved the
approaching a blind curve, the jeepney driver occupied
negligent and reckless manner in which his driver
the wrong lane. At the curve, they suddenly saw a parked
maneuvered the vehicle on that blind curve. Hence, the
dump truck and in order to avoid collision driver swerved
warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge was
to the right and accidentally plunged into the river. The
erroneous.
passengers sustained some injuries.
Consequently, a criminal complaint against Castillo and
complainant was filed before the sala of respondent
judge who then issued a warrant for the arrest of both
Castillo and complainant.
Issue: WON complainant can be held criminally liable.
Ruling: It has been held in Chapman v. Underwood (G.R.

No. 9010, March 28, 1914, 27 Phil 374.) "that An owner
who sits in his automobile and permits his driver to
continue in a violation of the law by the performance of
negligent acts, after he has had reasonable opportunity to
observe them and to direct that the driver cease
therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts.

SAPIERA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAPIERA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAPIERA vs CA G.R. No.

128927, September 14, 1999

Issue: WON complainant can be held criminally liable.

Ruling: It has been held in Chapman v. Underwood (G.R.

You might also like