1. Concept

Civil liability ex delicto

NOTE: Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. (RPC, Art.100)

Q: Rafael Poblador engaged the service of Manzano to look for the buyers of the WackWack share amounting to ₱18,000,000.00. Manzano showed a computation for the sale of the Wack-Wack Share to petitioner, showing a final net amount of ₱15,200,000.00. Manzano introduced Moreland Realty Inc. who agreed to buy the Wack-Wack share. The ₱15,200,000.00 was received by the party of Rafael and the remaining ₱2,800,000.00 was given to Manzano for the payment of the capital gains tax, documentary stamp tax, and other pertinent fees, as well as for her service fee. However, the sale of Wack-Wack share was annulled by the Probate Court. As such, the party of Rafael Poblador returned the ₱18,000,000.00 which Moreland paid to for the Wack-Wack share. Rafael demanded Manzano to return the ₱2,800,000.00, but to no avail. Rafael requested for the accounting of the ₱2,800,000.00 which was responded by Manzano by sending the Capital Gains Tax Return dated September 23, 1996 indicating the payment of P1,480,000.00 as capital gains tax. Examining these documents, Rafael and Torres allegedly noticed a discrepancy in the faxed Capital Gains Tax Return: while the typewritten portion of the Return indicated P1,480,000.00 as the capital gains tax paid, the machine validation imprint reflected only P80,000.00 as the amount paid. Rafael filed a case for Estafa against Manzano. However, the RTC dismissed the complaint for Estafa for failure of the prosecution to "prove all the elements of Estafa through misappropriation. Rafael appealed the civil aspect of the case. Will the civil aspect based on ex delicto will prosper?

A: NO. In the fairly recent case of Dy v. People, the Court discussed the concept of civil liability ex delicto in Estafa cases under paragraph 1 (b), Article 315 of the RPC (with which Manzano was likewise charged), stating that when the element of misappropriation or conversion is absent, there can be no Estafa and concomitantly, the civil liability ex delicto does not exist. Whenever the elements of Estafa are not established, and that the delivery of any personal property was made pursuant to a contract, any civil liability arising from the Estafa cannot be awarded in the criminal case. This is because the civil liability arising from the contract is not civil liability ex delicto, which arises from the same act or omission constituting the crime. Civil liability ex delicto is the liability sought to be recovered in a civil action deemed instituted with the criminal case." In this case, the Court agrees with the findings of both the RTC and the CA that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of Estafa through misappropriation as defined in, and penalized under, paragraph 1 (b ), [Article 315] of the [RPC]. (Estate Of Honorio Poblador, Jr., Represented By Rafael A. Poblador V. Rosario L. Manzano, G.R. No. 192391, June 19, 2017)