Vicente v. People · G.R. 261347

Petitioner: Vicente
Respondent: People
Citation: G.R. No. 261347
Court: Supreme Court
Division: Third Division
Decided: January 11, 2023

Summary

Eduardo Vicente was held civilly liable for two bounced checks despite criminal acquittal under BP 22. The Supreme Court denied his petition challenging the Court of Appeals decision that affirmed his civil liability. The Court emphasized that criminal acquittal does not automatically extinguish civil liability when the underlying act (issuing the checks) clearly existed. Vicente's defense that the checks were not intended for deposit but only as guarantee was deemed immaterial under BP 22, a mala prohibita law. The Court applied the principle that civil liability requires only preponderance of evidence, unlike criminal liability which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Legal interest was imposed at varying rates following the Nacar doctrine.

Related cases

Other Philippine cases on the same provisions and issues.

Lozano v. Martinez G.R. No. L-63419
King v. People G.R. No. 131540
Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 125297
Alferez v. People G.R. No. 182301
Domagsang v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 139292
Macalalag v. People G.R. No. 164358
Ongson v. People G.R. No. 156169
Medalla v. Laxa G.R. No. 193362
Nierras v. Dacuycuy G.R. No. 59568
Ada v. Viola G.R. No. 82346
People v. Chua G.R. No. 130632
Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 95796

Featured in research

In-depth Intellegal research that discusses this case.

Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22)

By the Intellegal Editorial Board · January 11, 2023

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →

AI-assisted case analysis — for research only. Verify against the official decision. A research aid, not legal advice; using this page creates no attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, consult a Philippine lawyer. Verify every holding and citation against the official decision (Supreme Court E-Library / Official Gazette) before relying on it.